In a significant observation reflecting India’s socio-economic realities, the Supreme Court on December 18, 2025, declined to entertain a writ petition seeking stricter quality standards for packaged drinking water. Terming the plea as “luxury litigation”, the Court remarked that when a large section of the Indian population continues to struggle for access to basic drinking water, judicial scrutiny of international standards for bottled water reflects an urban-centric mindset.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Sarang Vaman Yadwadkar, which sought directions for improving regulatory standards governing packaged drinking water in India by aligning them with international benchmarks such as those followed in the United States, the European Union, and Japan.
“Where Is Drinking Water in This Country?”: Supreme Court Questions the Premise of the Petition
At the very outset, the Chief Justice questioned the foundation of the petition. Expressing concern over the broader water crisis in the country, the CJI remarked:
“Where is the drinking water in this country, madam? People do not have drinking water; the quality of bottled water will come later on.”
The Court’s remarks underscored a crucial distinction between access to water as a basic necessity and quality regulation of packaged water, which the Bench viewed as a secondary concern in the Indian context.
The Bench made it clear that while quality standards are important, they cannot be divorced from the ground realities faced by millions of Indians, particularly those living in rural and economically weaker regions.
Petitioner’s Argument: Public Health and Statutory Obligations Under FSS Act
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Anita Shenoy strongly contested the Court’s characterisation of the petition as luxury litigation. She argued that packaged drinking water directly affects public health, especially in urban areas where consumers rely heavily on bottled water due to contamination of municipal supplies.
Relying on Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the petitioner submitted that the authorities are statutorily mandated to ensure adherence to prescribed safety standards. It was argued that these obligations cannot be diluted merely because access to drinking water remains a larger unresolved issue in the country.
The petitioner also highlighted that Indian permissible limits for contaminants in packaged drinking water are significantly weaker when compared to World Health Organization (WHO) standards and other international guidelines.
Court’s Response: “This Is an Urban-Centric Approach”
The Supreme Court, however, remained unconvinced. The CJI observed that the petition adopted a narrow, urban-centric perspective, ignoring the realities of rural India:
“This is an urban-centric approach; the people in rural areas drink groundwater, and nothing happens to them.”
The Bench noted that the petition would have merited greater consideration had it focused on villages and regions where even basic drinking water facilities are unavailable, rather than on labelling requirements or chemical compositions of packaged water bottles.
Emphasising this point, the CJI remarked:
“Water bottle should have this content, that content. These are all luxury litigations.”
Rejection of Importing US, EU, or Japan Guidelines
One of the central prayers in the petition was to bring Indian standards at par with global benchmarks. The Court categorically rejected this approach, cautioning against mechanical transplantation of foreign regulatory frameworks into the Indian context.
“Do you think we will be able to introduce the USA, Japan, EU guidelines? Let us face the ground realities of the country,” the CJI observed.
The Bench further remarked that litigation often tends to prioritise the concerns of the urban elite while neglecting the systemic hardships faced by the poor, particularly in relation to essential resources such as water.
“Nobody Takes Up the Cause of the Poor”: Strong Observations by the CJI
In a broader critique of public interest litigation trends, the Chief Justice observed that courts are increasingly confronted with issues that affect a small, privileged section of society, while fundamental problems faced by the poor remain under-litigated.
“Nobody takes up the cause of the poor; all this is rich and urbanised phobia,” the CJI said.
In a poignant closing remark, the CJI invoked Mahatma Gandhi’s approach to understanding India:
“When Gandhi came to India, he travelled to all poor parts. Ask the petitioner to travel to the poor parts where there is a challenge even to get water, then he will understand what is India.”
Liberty Granted to Approach Competent Authorities
While declining to entertain the petition judicially, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the competent authorities. This indicates that while the Court was unwilling to intervene at a constitutional level, regulatory or executive mechanisms remain open for addressing such concerns.
Legal Significance and Broader Implications
This judgment is significant for several reasons:
- Judicial Prioritisation of Socio-Economic Realities
The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s approach of contextual adjudication, where policy and regulatory challenges are assessed against India’s developmental realities. - Limits of Public Interest Litigation
The decision reiterates that PILs must be grounded in broader public welfare rather than niche urban concerns, especially when fundamental rights like access to drinking water remain unfulfilled for large sections of the population. - Cautious Approach to International Standards
The Court’s reluctance to import foreign regulatory norms without considering feasibility reflects judicial restraint in matters involving policy and resource allocation. - Public Health vs. Access Debate
The case highlights an ongoing tension between quality regulation and universal access, raising important questions for policymakers rather than courts alone.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plea on packaged drinking water standards serves as a reminder that constitutional courts operate within the realities of the society they serve. By terming the petition as “luxury litigation”, the Court emphasised that access to basic drinking water remains a far more pressing concern than harmonisation of bottled water standards with international benchmarks.
While the ruling may disappoint advocates of stricter food safety norms, it firmly situates the discourse within India’s socio-economic context, urging litigants and policymakers alike to focus on the fundamental challenges that continue to affect millions across the country.
Case Title: Sarang Vaman Yadwadkar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 1222 of 2025
Also Read
