The Madhya Pradesh High Court has unequivocally affirmed that access to clean drinking water is a non-negotiable facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In response to a public health crisis in Indore’s Bhagirathpura area, where water contamination allegedly caused dozens of deaths, the Court took the extraordinary step of appointing a former High Court judge as an independent commission of inquiry - a rare judicial intervention underscoring the gravity of systemic administrative failure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitions, filed in individual and public interest capacities, exposed a catastrophic failure in Indore’s public water supply system. Residents of Bhagirathpura (Ward No. 11) reported widespread illness, including cholera, typhoid, and gastroenteritis, following the consumption of municipal water. Media reports and medical records indicated a sharp spike in hospital admissions and fatalities, with petitioners claiming up to 30 deaths. Allegations included sewage ingress into water pipelines, parallel laying of sewer and water lines without separation, and chronic neglect by the Indore Municipal Corporation and Public Health Engineering Department.
Procedural History
- January 2026: Multiple writ petitions filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, seeking urgent relief.
- 6 January 2026: Court issued interim directions mandating tanker water supply, cessation of contaminated sources, medical camps, and NABL-accredited water testing.
- 27 January 2026: State and Municipal Corporation submitted compliance reports claiming adherence to orders.
- Petitioners challenged the reports as inadequate, citing ongoing non-compliance with water supply and medical treatment directives.
- State submitted a death audit report attributing only 16 deaths to water contamination, with the rest labeled "inconclusive" - without supporting documentation or explanation of "verbal autopsy" methodology.
Relief Sought
Petitioners sought: (1) immediate restoration of safe water supply; (2) independent investigation into causes and accountability; (3) compensation for victims; (4) structural reforms to prevent recurrence; and (5) judicial oversight of compliance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses a justiciable right to uncontaminated drinking water, and whether the State’s failure to ensure it, coupled with opaque and unverified death reports, warrants the appointment of an independent judicial commission to investigate systemic negligence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Petitioners relied on Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India to argue that clean water is intrinsic to the right to life. They contended that the State’s death audit was procedurally flawed - relying on unverified "verbal autopsies" without medical records or cross-examination. They emphasized that the High Level Committee appointed by the State was composed of internal officials, creating a conflict of interest and undermining credibility. They cited State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar to assert that when fundamental rights are at stake, courts must act proactively to ensure accountability.
For the Respondent
The State and Indore Municipal Corporation argued that interim directions were being implemented, citing tanker deployments and water testing. They claimed the death audit was prepared by qualified medical professionals and that the term "inconclusive" reflected genuine diagnostic uncertainty. They opposed an independent commission, arguing that internal mechanisms were sufficient and that judicial overreach would disrupt administrative processes.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on internal reports as insufficient to discharge its constitutional duty. It noted that the death audit’s use of "verbal autopsy" - a term undefined and unsupported by documentation - raised serious concerns about evidentiary integrity. The Court observed that the State could not produce any written protocol, signed reports, or laboratory confirmations to substantiate its conclusions.
"The right to life under Article 21 is not a theoretical abstraction but a living reality that demands tangible, verifiable action. When citizens die from contaminated water, and the State offers no credible accounting, the Court cannot remain a silent spectator."
The Court distinguished State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das by emphasizing that this was not a routine administrative lapse but a public health emergency with mass casualties. It held that the appointment of an independent commission was not an intrusion into executive domain but a necessary exercise of judicial power under Article 226 to enforce fundamental rights. The Court affirmed that transparency and accountability are non-negotiable when life is at stake, and that internal inquiries cannot substitute for independent, credible investigations.
The Court further held that the powers granted to the Commission - including summoning witnesses, accessing records, and ordering tests - were essential to uncover the truth and restore public trust. It rejected the notion that judicial oversight would hinder governance; instead, it affirmed that judicial intervention is the last resort when governance fails.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that the right to clean drinking water is a guaranteed component of Article 21, and that the State’s failure to provide it, coupled with its opaque death audit, constituted a violation of constitutional obligations. The Court appointed Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta as an independent commission of inquiry with full civil court powers to investigate causes, deaths, accountability, and remedial measures.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Independent Inquiry Is Mandatory in Public Health Emergencies
- Practitioners must now argue that when mass casualties arise from state negligence in public utilities, courts have the duty to appoint independent judicial commissions.
- Internal committees composed of implicated officials are insufficient; independence and credibility are mandatory.
- Courts may invoke Article 226 to create fact-finding bodies even in the absence of a specific statutory mechanism.
Death Reports Must Be Scientifically Validated
- Any official death audit must be based on documented medical records, laboratory reports, and verifiable methodologies.
- Terms like "verbal autopsy" without standardized protocols or supporting evidence are legally untenable.
- Petitioners in similar cases should demand production of original case sheets, lab reports, and signed affidavits from medical personnel.
Water Quality Monitoring Must Be Continuous and Transparent
- Daily water testing by NABL-accredited labs is now a minimum standard in urban water supply systems.
- Online monitoring systems and public disclosure of results are implied constitutional requirements under Article 21.
- Failure to implement such systems may now constitute prima facie violation of fundamental rights.
