PIL TO SECURE THE RIGHT TO DRINKING WATER FOR ALL
With land prices skyrocketing, Mumbai competes with megacities in the world as far as land rates
are concerned. Rapid urbanisation, increasing commercialisation has led to a boom in the services
sector. Real estate, financial, communication and consultancy services claim the best of the talent,
with several others left to find employment in the small scale industries or unorganised sector.
Consequently, we see a segregation of the population based on economic classes with the
upper-middle and upper classes claiming the bulk of the available utilities. Gentrification of the
different areas in Mumbai has meant that people belonging to economically weaker sections are
compelled to inhabit informal settlements.
In Mumbai, informal settlements have also been associated with footloose migrants from the poorer
states of India. An elitist view claiming the right to Mumbai’s resources only for those paying direct
taxes has resulted in the marginalisation of slum dwellers. Their status as “outsiders” and those
belonging to the lowest class of the population has invoked prejudices of criminal activity against
them. Regional political parties have exploited their plight by pitting the middle classes against them.
Recognising slum dwellers access to utilities would legitimise their status as citizens of the city. This
forms a major reason for the opposition to granting drinking water access to all in an overcrowded
and resources starved city like Mumbai.
In 2011, Pani Haq Samiti filed a public interest litigation to demand the right to access clean drinking
water for all inhabitants in the city, irrespective of their economic class and social status in society.
Do only the economically well off deserve the right to drinking water? When the constitution of India
guarantees the right to free movement within its territory, who decides the legality of a migrants in a
city? Aside from these questions, the PIL also brought to light the impact that denial of drinking
water had on health and livelihoods of the marginalised.
Reaction of the authorities
Interim judgement
Final judgement
