Abstract
Emerging contaminants pose a significant threat to the current water quality discussions. These substances include pharmaceutical residues, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and plasticisers such as “Diethylhexyl phthalate”[1] and antimony. These compounds have continued ill-effectsowing to their environmental persistence, bioaccumulation in living organisms, and resistance to conventional treatment methods. In India, existing regulations for packaged drinking water have not adequately addressed these emerging threats. In 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed this issue by dismissing a public interest litigation[2]that sought stricter regulations and alignment with international standards. The Court categorised the case as “luxury litigation”, citing competing priorities concerning equitable access to water. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of the current legal and regulatory framework is necessary. This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach, combining legal analysis with empirical data. The analysis covers the “Bureau of Indian Standards”[3]specifications (IS 10500:2012 and IS 14543:2016), guidelines from the Food Standards and Safety Authority of India,[4]and constitutional law jurisprudence which expands the scope of the “right to life”. Furthermore, the study reviews survey data which demonstrates significant public support for enhanced water quality testing, even if such measures result in increased costs. This literature, through a comparative analysis aims to highlight the disparities between Indian standards and international guidelines. The findings indicate a structural imbalance in India’s water safety regulations, characterized by a predominant focus on access rather than quality. This paper concludes by demonstrating the pressing need for legislative reforms, enhanced regulatory oversight, and better alignment with global goals to ensure the provision of safe and sustainable drinking water.
Introduction
The accessibility and quality of water are general concerns that are fundamental to the well-being of humans across the globe. Availability of safe and clean water for the purposes of consumption is not simply a subject of convenience, but also an important component of public health. This obligation travels beyond geographical limits, and aligns with the ambitions of Sustainable Development Goal 6, which stresses upon the universal goal of achieving sustainability of water. The continuing absence of accessibility or quality of consumable water prevails as a concern, furthering the neglect of public health, as well as individual impacts to well-being. Owing to fast-paced urbanisation and industrialisation, the risks posed by emerging pollutants to the ecosystem, including the water resources, has become increasingly prominent. Resultantly, the existence of “contaminants of emerging concern”[5] in potable water systems is unavoidable because of their omnipresent nature in marine ecosystems.[6]
While “Har Ghar Jal”, an initiative of the State which seeks to ensure adequate and safe potable water to rural homes is being lauded as a significant achievement in the quest to further the well-being of citizens, the refusal of the Apex Court of the country to adjudicate on a PIL filed for an assessment of the standards imposed on packaged drinking water, demands reflection and consideration. Deeming this case as “luxury litigation”, while holding it undeserving of the Court’s time when most of the citizens are still not able to avail access to basic potable water inadvertently reveals the difference between political discourse and lived human experiences.[7] The PIL sought for instructions to be made to the FSSAI to redraft its regulations on the allowable limits of DEHP and antimony in bottled drinking water, to align it with global frameworks governing the same.
Highlighting that the people residing in rural areas primarily rely on groundwater, the Chief Justice of India deemed the questions pertaining to standards applicable to bottled water an “urban centric approach”, and further added that the people residing in rural areas consume groundwater, and remain unaffected by the same.[8] Contamination of drinking water, either through industrial pollutants or effluents from agriculture has an impact on public health at large, whether it be in an urban or rural context. Hazards to public health do not take into consideration any categorisation of urban versus rural; they proliferate where monitoring is poor, and standards inadequate.[9] This research paper, aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the domestic and international regulatory framework for governing the quality of drinking water, as well as its jurisprudential dimension by analysing key precedents, including the recent “Luxury Litigation” judgement. It seeks to highlight the profound lacunae between India’s present environmental law standards, and the actualities of modern CECs.
[1] Hereinafter referred to as “DEHP”.
[2]Hereinafter referred to as “PIL”.
[3]Hereinafter referred to as “BIS”.
[4]Hereinafter referred to as “FSSAI”.
[5]Hereinafter referred to as “CEC”.
[6]Rinaldy Jose Nathanael, Latonia Nur Adyanis & Katharina Oginawati, The last decade epidemiologic concern of drinking water contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in Asian Countries: A scoping review, Heliyon (2024), https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2405-8440%2824%2915267-X.
[7]Dharmesh Shah, Between Har Ghar Jal and “Luxury Litigation”: A Question of Water Quality, The Wire (2026), https://thewire.in/health/between-har-ghar-jal-and-luxury-litigation-a-question-of-water-quality.
[8]“All luxury litigations”: SC declines to hear PIL on packaged drinking water standards, The Indian Express (2025), https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/all-luxury-litigations-sc-declines-to-hear-pil-on-packaged-drinking-water-standards-10426790/.
[9]Shah, supra note 7.