Water Fee or Free Water? A Gram Panchayat's Fiscal Dilemma
Kankeri Gram Panchayat in Kalahandi district, Odisha, has 1,240 households, of which 310 are below the poverty line. It built a piped drinking-water scheme under a state programme. The state's Basudha Yojana promises 'free water to every rural household' and gives an annual operation-and-maintenance grant of ₹1.8 lakh. Electricity and repair costs, however, are ₹4.5 lakh a year. To bridge the gap, the panchayat resolves to charge ₹60 per month per household, exempting BPL families. About 180 households refuse to pay, citing the state's free-water promise. The block development officer says the panchayat cannot levy a 'tax' without fresh state sanction. The sarpanch cites the 73rd Amendment and the Eleventh Schedule. A local NGO threatens a protest, and the pump will be disconnected in 30 days unless bills are paid. The panchayat must decide whether to insist on the fee, withdraw it, or find another way.
1. Examine whether the gram panchayat has constitutional authority to levy the ₹60 water charge. How do Article 243H and the Eleventh Schedule apply, and is the BDO's objection sound?
Read the worked answer
Article 243H does not itself impose a tax. It says the state legislature may, by law, authorise a panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees, and may assign taxes or provide grants-in-aid. Entry 11 of the Eleventh Schedule places 'drinking water' within panchayat functions. The constitutional question is therefore not whether panchayats can ever charge for water, but whether the state panchayat law permits this panchayat to do so.
The BDO's objection is only partly correct. A panchayat cannot create a new tax without statutory authorisation. But a water user charge is better analysed as a fee or user charge, not a tax: it is linked to a specific service, and those who pay receive a measurable benefit. Many state panchayat laws authorise water rates and service charges. The 73rd Amendment also expects fiscal autonomy, not complete dependence on grants.
A defensible answer: the panchayat should check the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act and rules for a power to charge water rates. If the power exists, the resolution is valid subject to gram sabha approval under Article 243A and to the exemption for BPL households. If no power exists, the panchayat must seek state authorisation or a higher O&M grant. The BDO cannot simply call every charge a 'tax' and refuse.
2. Analyse the conflict between the state's 'free water' promise and the panchayat's need to recover costs. Is 'free water' a legally enforceable right?
Read the worked answer
The state's promise is a policy commitment, not by itself a fundamental right. Article 47 of the Directive Principles requires the state to raise the level of nutrition and standard of public health and to prohibit intoxicating drinks and drugs; courts have used Article 21 to protect access to clean water. But a scheme announcement does not automatically create an individually enforceable right to unlimited free water, especially where the state has not funded the scheme fully.
The real conflict is between equity and financial sustainability. The state grant covers only ₹1.8 lakh of a ₹4.5 lakh cost, leaving a ₹2.7 lakh gap. If the panchayat does not recover anything, the pump fails and everyone loses water. If it charges a flat ₹60 without safeguards, the 310 BPL households may be pushed out.
A reasoned position: 'free water' should be read as a state policy goal, subject to availability and to the state honouring its own funding obligations. The panchayat cannot use the promise as a reason to run an unsustainable scheme, but neither can the state impose an unfunded mandate. The panchayat should demand that the state either fund the gap or authorise a graded tariff. Equity requires BPL exemptions and a lifeline slab, not a blanket refusal to charge.
3. Recommend a practical resolution that the gram panchayat can adopt within 30 days. Your answer should address legality, equity and the risk of protest.
Read the worked answer
The panchayat should adopt a three-part resolution rather than a simple yes-or-no vote.
Legal route: Confirm from the state panchayat law and rules that water rates are permitted. Record the legal basis in the resolution and place it before the gram sabha for approval under Article 243A. This answers the BDO's objection without confrontation.
Graded tariff with equity: Replace the flat ₹60 with slabs. BPL households pay nothing for the first 10 kilolitres; other households pay ₹40 for the first slab and ₹80 above it. This protects the poor and links payment to use.
Cost-sharing demand: Send a written proposal to the state department asking it to bridge the ₹2.7 lakh O&M gap or to revise the Basudha grant. Meanwhile, use a small share of the panchayat's own revenue and community shramdan for minor repairs.
Transparency and protest management: Publish the accounts at the panchayat office, hold a public meeting with the NGO, and explain that the choice is between a graded fee and disconnection. If 180 households still refuse, the panchayat should not disconnect water unilaterally; it should seek the BDO's mediation and, if needed, a state-level review. The aim is to keep the pump running while preserving the panchayat's constitutional space.