Published On: October 29th 2025
Authored By: Ishan Goutam Baruah
N.E.F. Law College (affiliated with Gauhati University)
Abstract
The Indian Constitution has subsumed the right to clean water under the broader concept of Article 21, which has acquired a new dimension in a world which is facing growing depletion of ground water and in need of urgent reforms to agriculture for sustainability. With the growing legal and scientific comprehension of the human right to water, judicial activism and policy advocacy have had a consistent widening effect on the interpretation of Article 21, harmonising national judicial case law with international human rights norms. This article is a detailed study of the constitutional, judicial and policy framework of right to clean water and the issues of groundwater management and the future course of sustainable agriculture for India.
Introduction
Article 21[1] in the Indian Constitution simply states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Although it was initially interpreted as a protection against unreasonable deprivation of life and liberty[2], an interpretation which expanded over time[3], the constitutional courts saw in it the right to a decent life. The Supreme Court made it clear that being an animal is not sufficient but that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity[4], and in turn that requires the ability to access food, shelter[5], healthcare[6], education[7], and most importantly clean and safe water.
This evolution derives its origins from case law, where the courts recognized the link between the quality of the environment and the right to life. The constitutional importance of social and economic rights such as health and shelter, and access to natural resources such as clean water, was not fully appreciated until the advent of the paradigmatic change in constitutional interpretation. Article 21 became the cornerstone of the legal right of environmental litigation and advocacy and laid the groundwork for recognition by the courts of clean water as an integral component of the right to life[8].
Historical Development of Article 21: From Personal Freedom to Environmental Rights
The literal original meaning of Article 21 – limited to mere physical survival – was challenged as litigation addressed popular grievances about pollution, toxic industrial activity and depletion of natural resources. The first ones such as A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)[9], used the limited test of “procedure established by law”. This changed during the coming decades, most notably in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator[10] and Chameli Singh v. State of U.P[11] where right to shelter, right to proper living space, right to clean water, right to sanitation, right to health were recognised as part of life with dignity.
Later environmental emergencies fueled additional expansion. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[12], the Supreme Court incorporated environmental health into the provisions of Article 21. Clean water, a necessary amenity for both drinking and sanitation, was continually reaffirmed as a judicially safeguarded element of individual liberty and dignity. Such thinking was reinforced by invocation of international legal norms and by appreciation of the fact that deprivation or pollution of water resources represents a direct attack on constitutional entitlements.
Overview of Groundwater Decline in India-
Groundwater is India’s major water resource, covering 62% of irrigation and as much as 85% of rural water supply. However, overpumping to irrigate, especially water-hungry crops such as paddy, due to policies and subsidy regime, has led to severe depletion.[13] Northwestern regions like Punjab and Haryana are hotbeds of this crisis: water levels there have fallen from 50-60 feet to 150-200 feet, and the indications are that they will fall below 300 meters by 2039.[14] Marginal annual recharge outpaces withdrawal, leading to potential for wholesale aquifer depletion and contamination.
Unsustainable farming methods—excessive use of rice and wheat encouraged by government purchasing schemes, blanket irrigation, and heavy use of fertilizers—have drastically shifted ecological balances. Not only has this undermined farm sustainability but also intensified inequalities, since small farmers do not have the resources to cope with declining water tables and higher extraction costs.[15]
Constitutionally, groundwater depletion poses the very essence of Article 21 at risk by questioning citizens’ right to safe drinking water, health, and livelihoods, particularly of vulnerable and marginalized communities. The crisis also involves other constitutional obligations—most notably Article 47 (obligation of the state to promote public health) and Article 51A(g) (fundamental obligation to safeguard and improve the environment).
Judicial Interpretation and Expansion of Article 21
(a) Supreme Court Judgments
The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 to encompass the right to clean air and water, starting with milestone cases like Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[16] and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[17]. In Subhash Kumar, the Court held that a person’s right to life includes the right to have clean air and water to enjoy. The case, although dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence, instituted the precedent that clean water is a basic right under Article 21.
The Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case solidified the precautionary and polluter pays principles into Indian environmental law. The courts have responded to massive groundwater pollution by ordering governmental intervention, allowing for fines, ordering closure of non-compliant industries, and establishing the public right to clean water as a matter of law. These cases created judicial precedents for state responsibility and protection of the environment, within the scope of the right to life.
(b) Recent High Court and Tribunal Decisions
Recent judicial interventions, most notably in High Courts and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), have dealt with instances of groundwater pollution and over-extraction in Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Punjab. Rulings have included environmental compensation against industries illegally extracting groundwater, the cancellation of no-objection certificates for borewells, and orders to state governments for closer enforcement. Courts have increasingly accepted groundwater as a public trust common resource, moving beyond property-based models in favor of community rights and fair access.
Comparative Scope with Article 47 and Article 51A(g)
Article 47[18], a Directive Principle of State Policy, imposes an obligation on the state to enhance public health and nutrition, and specifically links access to water and its quality to constitutional goals.
Article 51A(g)[19] places a constitutional obligation on all citizens to guard and enhance the environment and to feel sympathy towards living beings, turning water stewardship into an exercise of collective responsibility. Interpreted in conjunction with Article 21, these provisions reaffirm a constitutional pledge to water security and sustainable resource use—wherein state action is coupled with citizen engagement.
Groundwater Withdrawal: Causes, Impacts, and Law
Legal and Scientific Determinations
Scientific investigations point to the fact that India’s heavy dependence on groundwater for irrigation has resulted in alarming depletion rates – up to three times by 2080 owing to withdrawal under climatic stresses.[20] Two-thirds of districts are already suffering unsustainable populations with rural areas and marginal farmers have been particularly affected.[21] Additional issues include low aquifer recharge rate, arsenic and heavy metals contamination, and ecologic impacts of irrigation monoculturing.
The legal framework for groundwater is fragmented and obsolete, deriving historically from laws of easement in which landowners have real property rights in subsurface water. This regime has demonstrated deficiency and judicial interventions and proposed legislative reforms now favour adopting a rights-based, community-oriented regime, with sustainability and equity as its guiding principles.
Agricultural Practices and environmental justice
Unsustainable agriculture (paddy and wheat cultivation highly subsidized and procured by government policies) leads to increased groundwater loss and pollution.[22] Overuse of irrigation and chemical fertilizer fertilisers are responsible for both quantitative depletion and qualitative deterioration of groundwater, which is against the principles of the right to environmental justice enshrined in Article 21. It has direct consequences for marginalized populations, women, and smallholder farmers – exacerbating social disparities while creating real-life problems like lack of food, drink, and drugs, as well as contamination of water and soil – all of which require immediate action.
Compliance Issues With Laws
Lack of adequate regulation of groundwater abstraction, tensions between property and community, limited enforcement of prohibition and precautionary rules, and continuing inter-state water conflicts that hamper integrated management of resources. There is growing consensus, reflected in recent High Court decisions and proposed Model Groundwater Bills[23], that groundwater should be held under public trust, that local bodies should be empowered to do so, and that social and environmental impact assessments should be made mandatory for large-scale extraction and agricultural development.[24]
Organic Agriculture and article 21
Sustainable Farming Techniques to be Incorporated
Sustainable agriculture provides important answers for groundwater conservation. Technologies such as drip irrigation, crop rotation, micro-irrigation and organic farming save water while staying profitable. Policy level interventions (as exemplified by the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana – PMKSY)[25] are aimed at improving water use efficiency, making irrigation more protective and to create a “per drop, more crop” culture. Subsidies for micro-irrigation and community water management as part of PMKSY represent increasing convergence to Article 21 obligations.
Case Studies and Evaluation of Government Policies
Yet, despite the efforts made by the government, particularly through PMKSY, there are gaps in implementation owing to the nature of divided policy, lack of regulation, and poor integration with local governance. The case studies from Punjab and Rajasthan help us explain the pitfalls as well as the advancements. In Punjab, alternatives to paddy are available in crop diversification programs; however, subsidy and procurement patterns make wide scale adoption difficult. In Rajasthan, the state has been compelled by judicial action to take steps to regulate illegal groundwater extraction and contamination, and environmental protection has been brought into water planning.
In order to safeguard the water rights and to enforce the expanded scope of Article 21, in particular the judicially enforced sustainable agriculture in the form of court-mandated environmental impact assessment and punishment for non-compliance has been developed as a necessary tool.
Challenges in Enforcement and Implementation
Structural, regulatory, and policy barriers
There are, however, challenges in the realization of the broad scope of Article 21, such as fragmented legal systems, limited regulatory capacity, political opposition from agribusiness interests and inter-state conflict over resources.[26] Due to the presence of the easement rights and incremental legislating in response to the public trust paradigm, regulation is challenging while inter-state water conflicts are being settled administratively in a lack of strict enforcement mechanisms.
Groundwater recharge and climate change
Groundwater recharge rates are at risk from climate change, resulting in increased vulnerability in regions vulnerable to drought, and underscoring the need for adaptive legal and policy responses. Increasing temperatures are making progressive demands on irrigation, enhancing crop water stress, and intensifying extractions with long-term implications for sustainability and with disproportionate impacts on the most vulnerable populations.
Socio-economic Dimensions: Inequality and PIL
Groundwater depletion is also a major contributor to rural poverty, impacting particularly smallholder farmers and women whose access to water resources is vital for both domestic and livelihood purposes. Recognizing that access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) is a basic universal right, the use of PIL invoking Article 21 has emerged as a crucial tool to push for equity-based water governance, seeking redress and remedies in instances of pollution, and seeking judicial orders to facilitate inclusive resource management and access.
Recommended Changes for Reform and Policy Legislative Reform
Legislation should fill the loopholes in the existing system such as the principle of public trust, integrated water resource management, decentralization of management to local level Panchayats and municipal bodies. Rights-based management should be directly linked to Article 21 as it is in the Groundwater (Sustainable Management) Bill and model legislation should be adopted to incorporate requirements for sustainable agriculture practices, community governance structures, and stringent penalty mechanisms for non-compliance. Strengthen the effectiveness of sanctions by integrating accountability measures, while providing for regular reporting and stakeholder participation in decision making.
Governance models need to be equity, inclusive and adaptive, and build on good practice case studies and international best practice.
Judicial scrutiny of groundwater in agricultural and industrial projects
Courts should continue laying down strict norms for environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects impacting groundwater through precautionary and polluter pays principles. These measures are appropriate in relation to the extended scope of Article 21 by virtue of being directly realistic and in accordance with the obligations under Article 47 and 51A(g).
Community Based Water Governance
Local communities and bodies need to be empowered for water governance. Governance models should be grounded in the principles of equity, inclusion and adaptive management, whilst leveraging good practice case studies and best practice from around the world These methods are in themselves realistic in the implementation of the extended scope of Article 21 and in the fulfillment of the obligations under Articles 47 and 51A(g).
References
[1] India Const. art. 21
[2] A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 27 (India)
[3] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India)
[4] Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 S.C.C. 608 (India)
[5] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 S.C.C. 545 (India)
[6] Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B., (1996) 4 S.C.C. 37 (India)
[7] Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 645 (India)
[8] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 598 (India).
[9] A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 27
[10] (1981) 1 S.C.C. 608
[11] Chameli Singh v. State of U.P, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 549 (India)
[12] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 395 (India)
[13] Amit Kapoor & Mukul Anand, Addressing Groundwater Depletion Crisis in India: Institutionalizing Rights and Technological Innovations (EAC-PM Working Paper Series, Mar. 2024), https://eacpm.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Addressing_Groundwater_Depletion_in_India.pdf.
[14] Hanan Zaffar & Jyoti Thakur, As India’s Groundwater Evaporates, Farmers Scramble for Solutions, FairPlanet (Feb. 11, 2024), https://www.fairplanet.org/story/as-indias-groundwater-evaporates-farmers-scramble-for-solutions/.
[15] Groundwater Depletion in Punjab: The Impact of Over-Irrigation on Agriculture, Nexteel (2023), https://nexteel.in/groundwater-depletion-in-punjab-the-impact-of-over-irrigation-on-agriculture/.
[16] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 598 (India)
[17] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647 (India)
[18] India Const. art. 47
[19] India Const. art. 51A, cl. (g)
[20] Nishan Bhattarai et al., Warming Temperatures Exacerbate Groundwater Depletion Rates in India, 9 Sci. Advances eadi1401 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi1401.
[21] Amit Kapoor & Mukul Anand, Addressing Groundwater Depletion Crisis in India: Institutionalizing Rights and Technological Innovations (EAC-PM Working Paper Series, Mar. 2024), https://eacpm.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Addressing_Groundwater_Depletion_in_India.pdf.
[22] Groundwater Depletion in Punjab: The Impact of Over-Irrigation on Agriculture, Nexteel (2023), https://nexteel.in/groundwater-depletion-in-punjab-the-impact-of-over-irrigation-on-agriculture/.
[23] Model Bill for the Conservation, Protection, Development and Regulation of Groundwater (2016) (India)
[24] Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act, No. 26, Acts of Punjab Legislature, 2009 (India).
[25] Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana Guidelines (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare 2015) (India), https://pmksy.gov.in/mis/Uploads/2016/20160926114841031-1.pdf.
