CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtFull Bench(2010) 09 SC CK 0044

Voice of India through its Chairman vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 20 September 2010 · Citation: (2010) 9 UJ 4667

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. H. Kapadia, C.J · Swatanter Kumar, J · K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 263 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 326 words
1.

Petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the right to free drinking water is part of Right to Life under Article 21of the Constitution. Consequently, petitioner prays that water be supplied to every citizen in this country free of cost. In this connection, petitioner has submitted that the various State Governments, including, Delhi should be directed to arrange for free potable drinking water through MCDs and NDMCs.

2.

In this writ petition all the States and Union Territories are made party-respondents.

3.

We are fully conscious of the fact that even after 60 years a citizen of this country is not getting clean potable water. In this regard, we agree with the petitioner. It is, however, not possible for this Court to monitor and grant relief(s) to the petitioner on all India basis. Moreover, as stated above, the petitioner seeks relief(s) essentially against municipal corporations in each State because supply of clean potable water is the function of municipal corporations and other local bodies. Even instances given in the annexures relate to different sectors/localities within the municipalities in different States.

4.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner may move the concerned High Court with regard to its grievances, particularly, when such grievances are confined to municipal areas and to specific areas where citizens do not get clean potable water for drinking. We cannot monitor such local institutions under Article 32 of the Constitution. We refuse to believe that the concerned High Courts will not look into such grievances, if specific detailed instances are brought to its notice as submitted on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that if it has to move the High Court, it may take several years for redressal of its grievances. We do not share that perception. Lastly, the subject matter of this writ petition is a State subject under the Constitution.

5.

Subject to what is stated above, this writ petition stands disposed of.