Delivering a sharp reminder of the State's constitutional obligations, the Bombay High Court has held that access to clean and potable drinking water is a fundamental right and questioned why citizens in Maharashtra continue to approach courts for such a basic necessity even after 75 years of Independence.
A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata made the observations while hearing a long-running set of public interest litigations concerning conditions in the tribal Melghat region of Amravati district. The petitions, pending since 2007, raise issues ranging from malnutrition and healthcare shortages to the lack of access to safe drinking water.
The court expressed concern after being informed that several villages in Melghat were facing an acute shortage of potable water despite the onset of summer and repeated judicial interventions over the years. Petitioners told the court that many areas had not received water supplies for days and that tanker services remained irregular.
Questioning the government's response, the bench observed that a progressive state such as Maharashtra could not justify its inability to provide drinking water to its citizens.
"After 75 years of independence, people of India have to approach the court for drinking water?" Justice Gadkari remarked during the hearing.
The court further asked the State whether it had a comprehensive scheme to ensure drinking water reaches every citizen.
"Tell us if there is any scheme of the State for providing drinking water to the citizens. Keep aside Melghat, citizens across Maharashtra have to approach the court for relief for drinking water. Water has to be supplied. It has to be there," the bench observed.
The judges noted that access to water cannot be treated as a discretionary welfare measure but is intrinsically linked to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
According to submissions before the court, the situation in Melghat remains particularly alarming. The region has long been associated with malnutrition-related deaths among children, pregnant women and lactating mothers. During previous hearings, petitioners informed the court that people in the area were being forced to consume contaminated water, allegedly resulting in fatalities and serious health concerns.
Referring to the State's affidavit, the bench also took exception to language suggesting that water would be supplied whenever there was an "indication" of need.
"Why do you need indication? Water must be supplied," Justice Gadkari said.
He further asked the government to explain how it intended to ensure that even the most remote citizen received access to drinking water.
"Tell us how will you provide drinking water to the last person of any village, provided you consider that person as a citizen of India."
The court emphasised that citizens were not seeking subsidies or special benefits but enforcement of their basic rights.
"They are not asking for any subsidy; they are here for their fundamental rights."
The bench directed the Maharashtra government to place before it details of any existing scheme for universal drinking water access and explain how and when such measures would be implemented.
The latest observations form part of a broader judicial scrutiny of conditions in Melghat. In recent months, the Bombay High Court has repeatedly expressed concern over continuing malnutrition deaths in tribal regions and deficiencies in healthcare and water infrastructure. Earlier this year, the court questioned how deaths linked to malnutrition and preventable deprivation continued despite repeated directions to the State.
The court has also previously stressed that people in Melghat should not be left without water during the peak summer months. During hearings in April and May, it directed authorities to ensure adequate tanker supplies to tribal villages, observing that residents and even cattle could not be allowed to go thirsty amid temperatures touching 45 to 48 degrees Celsius.
On Monday, however, the bench widened the discussion beyond Melghat, noting that water scarcity is not confined to one tribal region but affects multiple parts of Maharashtra. The judges observed that providing tanker water was not a favour being extended by the government but a constitutional obligation flowing from the fundamental right to life.
The matter is expected to continue before the court, with the Maharashtra government required to explain the measures it is taking to guarantee access to safe drinking water across the state.
