“Water Scarcity Comes First”: Supreme Court Declines to Hear PIL on Plastic Bottle Toxins, Allows Representation to Authorities

The plea, filed through AoR Srishti Agnihotri under Article 32 of the Constitution, had assailed the permissible limits of Antimony and Phthalic acid bis (2-ethylhexyl) ester (DEHP) in drinking water and plastic packaging. The petitioner argued that Indian standards were substantially weaker than those set by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and several other countries, and that they posed serious risks to public health.

During the hearing, the CJI questioned whether the matter warranted the Court’s intervention at this stage, remarking that access to drinking water itself remained a major challenge for large sections of the population.

“In this country, there are many people who don’t have drinking water. The issue of quality of water will come later on,” the Chief Justice observed.

The Bench also comprising of Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that while the petition focused on international guidelines followed in jurisdictions such as the United States, Japan and the European Union, India was grappling with a more fundamental problem of availability. “Do you think this is a matter of drinking water? We as a society are facing challenges to get drinking water. You’re talking about US, Japan, EU guidelines. Let’s face the ground reality,” the CJI said.

The Court further remarked that the petition did not reflect the lived realities of the poorest sections of society. “You’re not going to take up the cause for poor people,” the Chief Justice told counsel, indicating that the framing of the plea appeared disconnected from pressing issues of access.

Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy appearing for the petitioner urged the Bench to consider international benchmarks, specifically those laid down by the World Health Organisation, and submitted that the standards in question related to public health and long-term exposure to toxic substances through packaged drinking water and plastic bottles.

However, the Bench remained unconvinced. After hearing brief submissions, the Court indicated that it was not inclined to examine the plea on merits. At this stage, the senior counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition.

While allowing the withdrawal, the CJI made a broader observation on the importance of understanding social realities before invoking the Court’s jurisdiction. Referring to Mahatma Gandhi’s travels across rural India, the Chief Justice said that Gandhi had immersed himself in the countryside to understand the plight of the people.

“Ask the petitioner to go and see around the country. When Mahatma Gandhi came to India from South Africa, he travelled across rural areas to understand the condition of the country, to understand the plight of the people,” the CJI remarked. Noting that the petitioner was a “big architect”, the Court suggested that he should travel across different parts of India to gain first-hand exposure to the challenges faced by ordinary citizens.

The Bench, however, clarified that the petitioner was not remediless. The Court permitted the counsel to make a representation before the concerned statutory authorities, including FSSAI and BIS, raising issues relating to drinking water standards and plastic packaging.

“I am sure they’ll consider it,” the Chief Justice said, while disposing of the matter.

The petition had alleged violations of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, contending that FSSAI failed to consider international standards and did not undertake mandatory public consultation while framing or revising limits for Antimony and DEHP. It had also invoked Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the standards were arbitrary and infringed the right to health and clean drinking water.

With the withdrawal of the plea, the Supreme Court has left the issue open for consideration by the executive and regulatory authorities, signalling judicial restraint in matters where policy choices intersect with broader socio-economic realities.