- (1.) Water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse, an oppression. The primary use to which the water is put being drinking, it would be mocking the nature to force the people who live on the bank of a river to remain thirsty, whereas others incidentally placed to an advantageous position are allowed to use the water for non-drinking purposes. A river has to flow through some territory; and it would be travesty of justice if the upper-riparian States were to use its water for purposes like irrigation, denying the lower riparian States the benefit of using the water even for quenching the thirst of its residents.
(2.) The plight of residents of Delhi in not getting sufficient water even for drinking, led Commodore S.D. Sinha to approach this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by filing a public interest petition, which came to be registered as Writ Petition (C) No. 537 of 1992 seeking inter alia, a direction to the concerned Governments to maintain regular flow of water, in Jamuna river so that the residents of Delhi do not face problem of drinking water, which however, was being so faced because of non-release of sufficient quantity of water from Tajewala Head. As intricate questions of law were found to be involved, on the suggestion of the court, Commodore Sinha. agreed to have the guidance and assistance of a senior lawyer through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.
(3.) It is this which found Senior Advocate, Shri K. K. Venugopal before us. The learned counsel took pains to bring to our notice by referring to some decision of the American Court, as well as to some writings, that drinking is the most benficial use of water and this need is so paramount that it cannot be made sub-servient to any other use of water, like irrigation. So, the right to use of water for domestic purpose would previal over other needs. It is because of this that it was contended that what has been stated in Article 262 of the Constitution dealing with adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter State river or river valleys, read with Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, could not exclude the jurisidiction of this Court to entertain the grievance of the petitioner.;