## Facts

- Residents of Alappuzha faced decades-long lack of safe, potable drinking water despite an existing public water-supply system.
- Two residents filed a writ petition under Article 226, treated as a public interest litigation, alleging prolonged governmental inaction regarding the “Alappuzha Water Supply Scheme.”
- The scheme was proposed around 2000–2001 to supply drinking water to Alappuzha Municipality and eight nearby panchayats; a project report estimated costs at approximately Rs. 7,783 lakhs.
- During the project’s evolution, the planned intake location was altered (including a shift from Veeyapuram to Pannai Kadavu), and pipe specifications were changed from mild steel to GRP.
- Petitioners alleged apathy and corruption in these changes and sought disclosure of project and water-quality records and directions to complete a workable scheme within a time frame.
- The Kerala Water Authority (KWA) filed a counter-affidavit stating the scheme stalled due to lack of Government loan guarantee/funding; it relied on a board resolution canceling earlier tenders pending funding confirmation.
- The State Government and relevant local bodies did not file affidavits responding to the allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether failure to provide safe drinking water in adequate quantity violates the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. How Article 47 (public health) and human-rights norms inform the State’s obligations concerning drinking water.
3. Whether mandamus-type relief should issue compelling disclosure of records and time-bound implementation (or re-planning) of the Alappuzha water-supply project.
4. To what extent a court may intervene when executive inaction persists, while avoiding substitution of judicial views for technical and policy judgments.

## Decision

- The High Court held that access to safe drinking water is an element of the right to life under Article 21, and that prolonged failure to provide it in adequate quantity violates that right and human rights.
- The Court found that establishing a statutory water authority does not relieve the State of its constitutional duty; effective delivery of potable water requires State support, including funding.
- The Court treated the petition as a genuine PIL and rejected indefinite postponement of an essential drinking-water project on funding grounds alone.
- The Court directed production of relevant records concerning the Alappuzha Water Supply Scheme.
- The Court ordered the State and KWA to take necessary steps to execute and complete the scheme within a stipulated period, or, if required, to prepare a fresh workable project report and implement it expeditiously.

## Legal Principles

- Safe drinking water in adequate quantity is part of the constitutional right to life (Article 21); denial through sustained governmental inaction can warrant constitutional remedies.
- Directive Principles concerning public health (including Article 47) may guide interpretation of Article 21 and clarify affirmative State obligations in a welfare-state framework.
- Creation of an autonomous statutory utility does not transfer away the State’s constitutional responsibility; the State remains accountable for ensuring resources and implementation for essential public services.
- In PIL matters involving basic rights, courts may require accountability measures (record production, enforceable directions, time-bound action) while generally leaving technical choices to competent authorities.

## Conclusion

The High Court recognized safe drinking water as a component of the right to life and granted mandamus-style relief to end prolonged administrative delay, requiring disclosure of project materials and directing the State and water authority to proceed with implementing (or promptly re-planning and implementing) a workable drinking-water scheme for Alappuzha.


Shajimon Joseph v. State of Kerala, W.P. (C) No. 16681 of 2006 (Ker. High Ct. Dec. 4, 2006)