NewKerala.com

Supreme Court's Reality Check: Why a Bottled Water PIL Was Dismissed

The Supreme Court wasn't having it with this public interest litigation. They felt the plea to tighten bottled water standards was out of touch, calling it "luxury litigation" when many villages lack basic water access. The judges pointed out that India can't just copy guidelines from countries like the US or Australia right now. They did, however, tell the petitioner they could take their concerns directly to the government.

Key Points: SC Refuses PIL on Bottled Water Standards Citing Ground Realities

  • The SC bench criticized the PIL for focusing on bottled water labels over village water access
  • The petition challenged FSSAI and BIS standards for antimony and DEHP limits
  • Court noted India cannot blindly adopt standards from developed nations at this stage
  • Petitioner granted liberty to submit a representation to government authorities for consideration
3 min read

'Be alive to ground realities': SC refuse to entertain PIL challenged bottled water standards

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL challenging India's bottled water quality standards, urging the petitioner to be "alive to ground realities" and focus on essential water access.

"Be alive to ground realities. You are citing Australian and Saudi Arabian guidelines. This is all just talking in the air. - Supreme Court Bench"

New Delhi, Dec 18

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging India's existing quality standards for bottled drinking water and plastic packaging.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that the plea reflected a disconnect from the country's ground realities.

The PIL questioned the standards prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) for permissible levels of antimony and DEHP (Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate) in packaged drinking water and plastic bottles.

During the hearing, the CJI Surya Kant-led Bench remarked on the petitioner's reliance on foreign standards and guidelines.

"With the situation we face, do you (the petitioner) think we can implement US guidelines, etc. Be alive to ground realities. You are citing Australian and Saudi Arabian guidelines. This is all just talking in the air," the apex court observed, adding that India cannot at this stage adopt benchmarks followed in developed countries.

"If the petitioner would have pushed for drinking water supply in villages which do not have access to any, we can understand. But what description should be on water bottles, etc., is just luxury litigation," the bench said.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the government authorities.

"Submit a representation to the authorities. We are sure it will be considered," the bench said.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution through advocate Shrishti Agnihotri, had sought quashing of FSSAI and BIS notifications prescribing permissible limits of antimony and DEHP in drinking water and plastic packaging, alleging that the standards were "ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution" and contrary to the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

As per the PIL, India, being a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, is obligated to ensure that international norms relating to health and safe drinking water are implemented through domestic law.

The petitioner argued that Indian standards "allow a higher amount of antimony and DEHP to be present in drinking water, as compared to the safe permissible amount set by the World Health Organisation and in other countries".

The plea further alleged that FSSAI failed to discharge its statutory duty under Section 18 of the FSSAI Act, 2006, which mandates that international standards be taken into account while framing regulations and that an "open and transparent public consultation" be conducted during the preparation or revision of standards.

Contending that higher exposure to antimony and DEHP poses serious health risks, including cardiovascular, respiratory and organ-related disorders, the petitioner claimed that the existing standards violate the right to health and the right to clean drinking water under Article 21 of the Constitution.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
While I understand the court's point about ground realities, I respectfully disagree on dismissing health concerns. If the standards are genuinely lower than WHO guidelines, it's a valid issue. We shouldn't compromise on public health just because other problems exist. Both can be addressed.
R
Rohit P
"Luxury litigation" – that phrase hits hard and is so true! The petitioner should visit a village in Rajasthan or Bundelkhand and see what the real water crisis looks like. Our courts are overburdened with such PILs while genuine issues wait. Good call by SC. 👍
A
Aman W
The court's advice to submit a representation to FSSAI is practical. Change should come through proper channels and scientific review, not just court orders. Hope the authorities seriously look at the data if there is a real health risk.
J
Jessica F
Living in Delhi, I rely on bottled water. This news is worrying. If the standards are lax, it affects all of us daily. The 'ground reality' for urban Indians *is* bottled water. The FSSAI needs to be transparent about how they set these limits.
K
Karthik V
Can't just copy-paste US or Australian standards. Our climate, storage conditions, and industrial base are different. Standards must be scientifically tailored for India. That said, public consultation is a must – FSSAI should do that properly.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50