<p>A bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar said: “The scope of the writ petition is genuine. However, it is so wide that it is not possible for the Supreme Court to monitor the cause. We sympathise with the petitioner.”<br /><br />Petitioner Dhanesh Ieshdhan appearing for Voice of India, an NGO, submitted that even after 63 years of independence, the authorities have failed to provide free potable water to the public in the country.<br /><br />Seeking direction to the Centre and all state governments, Ieshdhan submitted that by not providing drinking water in public places meant that it was a violation of both fundamental rights and human rights.<br /><br />During the arguments, he cited the examples of non-availability of water in Delhi, Chandigarh and Rajasthan. Despite innumerable representations before the authorities concerned regarding “injurious and deceiving practice” of allowing vendors of water trolleys to sell “unhygienic water” across Delhi, no action was taken by the government.<br /><br />Referring to a letter sent by the MCD in response to his representation, the petitioner claimed the communication substantiated his claims as to how the civic bodies manage the public affairs with a “blind eye” and present themselves as if they do not have knowledge about the “ongoing malpractice.”</p>
<p>A bench of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar said: “The scope of the writ petition is genuine. However, it is so wide that it is not possible for the Supreme Court to monitor the cause. We sympathise with the petitioner.”<br /><br />Petitioner Dhanesh Ieshdhan appearing for Voice of India, an NGO, submitted that even after 63 years of independence, the authorities have failed to provide free potable water to the public in the country.<br /><br />Seeking direction to the Centre and all state governments, Ieshdhan submitted that by not providing drinking water in public places meant that it was a violation of both fundamental rights and human rights.<br /><br />During the arguments, he cited the examples of non-availability of water in Delhi, Chandigarh and Rajasthan. Despite innumerable representations before the authorities concerned regarding “injurious and deceiving practice” of allowing vendors of water trolleys to sell “unhygienic water” across Delhi, no action was taken by the government.<br /><br />Referring to a letter sent by the MCD in response to his representation, the petitioner claimed the communication substantiated his claims as to how the civic bodies manage the public affairs with a “blind eye” and present themselves as if they do not have knowledge about the “ongoing malpractice.”</p>
