PIL against a Bottling Plant: Groundwater, Livelihood and Judicial Review
In a drought-prone block of Bolangir district, a beverage company has a lease to extract 200,000 litres of groundwater per day from a borewell near a village of 600 farming households. The state groundwater authority approved the lease after a 10-day notice. In three years, the water table has fallen from 12 metres to 28 metres, and 40% of the wells are dry. The company says it provides 180 local jobs and pays ₹1.2 crore in taxes. A group of college students files a public interest litigation in the High Court, seeking cancellation of the lease. The company challenges their locus standi, calling the petition 'busybody litigation'. The state argues that it has balanced development and environmental protection.
1. Explain the concept of public interest litigation and locus standi. Can the college students maintain this petition?
Read the worked answer
Public interest litigation (PIL) is a judicial innovation that allows the court to act on behalf of those who cannot easily approach it. Traditional locus standi required the petitioner to show a personal legal injury. In S.P. Gupta v Union of India (1981) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court relaxed this rule: any public-spirited person can move the court if the fundamental rights of a weaker section are violated and the petitioner is acting bona fide, not for personal gain.
The students are not landowners and have not suffered a direct personal injury. But they are residents of the affected area and claim a public interest in groundwater, a common resource. Their petition is maintainable if they show: (a) a genuine public cause, not publicity or political motive; (b) the affected community is unable to approach the court; and (c) the court can grant relief. The company's 'busybody' label is not decisive. Courts have admitted PILs by students, journalists, lawyers and NGOs on environmental issues.
However, PIL is not a roving commission. The students must place material facts before the court, not mere suspicion. If their claim is bona fide and supported by the falling water table, locus standi should not be a barrier. The court should hear the company and the state before deciding.
2. Analyse the competing claims: the right to water and livelihood, environmental protection, and the company's jobs and taxes.
Read the worked answer
The right to water is now part of Article 21. In Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to clean water and air. Groundwater is a common resource held in public trust; the state cannot allow its depletion for private profit without considering the needs of the community. The falling water table from 12 to 28 metres and the drying of 40% of wells are serious evidence of harm to livelihood.
The company's contribution is also relevant. It provides 180 jobs and pays ₹1.2 crore in taxes. Development is not opposed to environmental protection; the Supreme Court has adopted sustainable development and the precautionary principle in cases such as Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996). But jobs and taxes do not give the company a licence to exhaust a scarce resource. The lease must be based on the aquifer's recharge capacity, not on the company's willingness to pay.
The correct balance is not 'environment versus development' but intergenerational equity: the village needs water now, and future generations need it too. The company can continue only if extraction is capped and monitored. The state's claim of balance must be tested against the actual hydrological data, not merely asserted.
3. Recommend the approach the High Court should take and the kind of order it should pass.
Read the worked answer
The High Court should avoid becoming a hydrologist or an economic planner. It should use a procedural and evidence-based approach:
- Admit the PIL if the students are bona fide, and issue notice to the company and the groundwater authority.
- Appoint an independent expert committee (hydrogeologist, district water official, village representative) to assess the aquifer's recharge rate and the safe extraction limit.
- Order an interim cap on extraction until the report is ready, and require the company to install a metering and recharge system.
- Direct a public hearing with the affected villagers, the panchayat and the company, so that jobs and water needs are both heard.
- Apply the precautionary principle and public trust doctrine: if the evidence shows that extraction is unsustainable, the lease should be revised or cancelled, with a transition plan for workers.
The Court should not order immediate closure without evidence, nor should it defer to the state's bare assertion of balance. A reasoned order should require periodic review, compensation for affected farmers where appropriate, and transparency in groundwater data. This protects the right to water under Article 21 while respecting the state's development role and the company's right to a fair hearing.