|
“WATER RIGHTS IN INDIA – AN ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE”
1
Author(s):
OMPRAKASH DIGAMBAR SOMKUWAR
Vol - 9, Issue- 4 ,
Page(s) : 222 - 232
(2018 )
DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/CASIRJ
Abstract
Water whether consumed directly or used for such basic needs as sanitation, cleansing and growing goods is essential to human life. Thus, it is recognized as an essential element to the individual as well as for the land. Many remain unemployed because water resources cannot support agricultural or industrial growth. Water problems ultimately and ups “people” problems. Therefore, it must be treated as fundamental right. The Nemours fundamental human right cannot be released without water, Right to Life, Right to Food, Right to self-determination, Right to adequate standard of living, Right to Housing, Right to Education, Right to Health, Right to take part in cultural life, Right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air in Subhas Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, it has been judicially recognized by the Supreme Court that “Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life ”,
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 420.
- Assistant Professor, Central India College of Law, Nagpur. The author can be reached at som1980prakash@gmail.com
- Iyer V.R. Krishna, “Rivers, Sands and People’s Survival”, Cochin University Law Review, 2002, p. 4.
- See, Mittal M.H.; “Impact of Economic System on Environmental Protection”, Cochin University Law Review, 1993, p. 219.
- D’ Souza, R. (2006). Interstate disputes over Krishna – law, Science and imperialism. Hyderabad: Orient Longman.
- Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal, Final Order and Decision of the Tribunal, 1979.
- Muralidhar, S. (2006). The Right to Water: An overview of the Indian legal regime. In E. Riedel & P. Rothen (Eds.), The Human Right to Water (pp. 65-81). Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts – Verlag.
- AIR 1991 SC 420.
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 319 of 1994, Supreme Court of India, Judgment of 18 October 2000, AIR 2000 SC 3751.
- Planning Commission (2006). Rural water supply and sanitation, eleventh five-year plan – appraoach paper, New Delhi: Planning Commission.
- (1997) 1SCC 388.
- (1987) 1 SCC 395.
- Abraham P. Meachinkara; “Evolving Environmental Jurisprudence in India”, Cochin University Law Review, 2004, p. 254.
- Rozencranze & Shyam Diwan: Environmental Law and Policy in India, 2002, p. 133.
- Chandran. U. Sarath; “Human Rights And Environmental Protection”, Cochin University Law Review, 2002, p. 181.
- Doabia, T.S. (J): op.cit., p. 338.
- These cases include Wasim Ahmed Khan v. Govt. of AP, 202(5) ALT 526 (D.B.); Mukesh Sharma v. Allahabad Nagar Nigam & Ors., 2000 ALL.L.J. 3077; Diwan Singh and another, v. The S.D.M. and other 2000 ALL L.J. 273; S.K. Garg v. State of U.P. 1999 ALL L.J. 332; Gautam Uzir & Anr. V. Gauhati Municipal Corpn. 1999(3) GLT 110.
- Gautam Uzir & Anr. V. Gauhati Municipal Corp. 1999(3) GLT 110.
- Para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Gauhati Municipal Corporation and quoted in 1999(3) GLT 110.
- S.K. Garg v. State of U.P. 1999 ALL L.J. 332.
- In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1991) 2 SCC 549.
- The Supreme Court held in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549: AIR 1996 SC 1051, “That right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society. All civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Convention or under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without these basic human right”.
- Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking v. State of Haryana (1996) 2SCC 572: AIR 1996 SC 2992.
- Further the Court said since the matter involved technical expertise, the Committee shall consult experts also in this regards. If any complaints made by the citizens of any locality that they are not getting water the committee would look into it and do the needful. See Para 9 in S.K. Garg v. State of U.P., 1999 ALL L.J. 332.
- Wasim Ahmed Khan v. Govt. of AP, 202(5) ALT 526.
- Vishala Kochi Kudivella Samrakshana Samiti v. State of Kerala, 2006(1) KLT 919, at para. 3.
- Article 32(ii). The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs including writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari, which may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the right conference by this part.
- Article 226(i). Every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories inrelation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari], or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
- Krishna Chandra Jena; “Environmental Pollution and its Legal Control, SCJ, 2000, p. 38.”
- Thakur Kailash Lal: Environmental Protection Law And Policy in India, 2003, p. 305.
- Supra note 1, p. 21.
- Pandey, A.K.: “Constitution And the Environment”, Cochin University Law Review 2005, p. 28.
- Sivakumar, S.: “Environmental Protection; International and National Perspective”, Cochin University Law
- Sharma, S.R.; “Noise Pollution and Public Interest Litigation”, AIR 2005, 94 Journal (Feb.), Vol. 92, p. 94.
- Shripad Dharmadhikari, “Recognising the Human Right to Water”, INDIA TOGETHER, 17th October, 2010.
- Abhishek Tripathy and Prajna R. Mohapatra, Supra 19.
|