By Sujit Bhar
The Supreme Court’s recent dismissal of a public interest litigation seeking the adoption of World Health Organization (WHO) standards for permissible levels of antimony and Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) in packaged food and drinking water has sparked a debate far larger than plastic bottles and chemical migration. At its core lies a troubling question: does poverty justify the dilution of safety standards for everyone?
The Court’s strong observations about an “urbanised phobia of the rich” and its emphasis on India’s ground realities may have been intended as a caution against elitist litigation. Yet, when examined closely, this line of reasoning risks the normalising of a dangerous principle—that the inability of the poorest to access the best standards legitimises lower standards for all.
This is not merely a legal or technical dispute about food safety norms. It is about constitutional morality, the meaning of the right to life, and the kind of development model India chooses to follow.
The central premise implicit in the Court’s remarks appears to be that India’s vast population, weak infrastructure, and lack of universal access to clean water make it impractical to insist on the strictest global standards. But this logic seems deeply flawed.
If millions of Indians lack access to clean drinking water, that is an argument for raising standards, not lowering them. It is precisely because the poor suffer the most from contaminated water that regulatory frameworks must err on the side of caution. To suggest that because the poor drink unsafe water anyway, the rest of the population must accept potentially carcinogenic bottled water, is to conflate inevitability with policy choice.
The Constitution does not recognise different thresholds of safety for different classes of citizens. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty—a right that has consistently been interpreted to include the right to health, clean environment, and safe drinking water. Once bottled water enters the market as a regulated product, the State assumes responsibility for ensuring that it is safe, regardless of who consumes it.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF LOGIC
If the reasoning applied to food safety standards were extended elsewhere, its consequences would be alarming. By the same logic, can a general fall in law and order justify inferior policing for everyone? If certain parts of the country are crime-ridden, does that mean citizens in relatively safer areas should accept compromised law enforcement?
There is no argument that says that just because some districts lack hospitals, no one should demand quality healthcare elsewhere. Nor do we say that because some schools lack teachers, academic excellence must be diluted nationwide. Governance does not work by levelling down; it progresses by levelling up.
Applying this logic selectively to public health standards suggests an unsettling tolerance for mediocrity where the stakes are literally life and death.
Labelling concerns about carcinogenic chemicals as an “urbanised phobia of the rich” trivialises well-established scientific evidence. Antimony and DEHP are not hypothetical threats invented by alarmists. Their health risks are documented globally, which is precisely why WHO standards exist.
More importantly, chemical exposure does not distinguish between rich and poor. A plastic bottle sold at a highway stall does not contain a separate formulation for the affluent and another for the marginalised. Migrant workers, daily wage labourers, pilgrims, children in government schools, and tourists all consume bottled water. To frame safety concerns as elitist is to ignore the socio-economic reality that bottled water is often the only available option for the poor in urban and semi-urban India.
Corruption further complicates this narrative. In a country where regulatory capture, weak enforcement, and compromised inspections are widely acknowledged, lowering or maintaining permissive standards only magnifies the risk. Demanding best practices is not elitism; it is a rational response to systemic governance failures.
CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO A SAFE START
Perhaps the most disturbing omission in the Court’s reasoning is the impact on children. Children are not merely smaller adults; they are biologically more vulnerable to toxic exposure. DEHP, in particular, has been linked to reproductive harm and developmental issues.
Children consume bottled water in schools, during travel, and in public spaces. They do not choose the brand, the packaging, or the standards governing its safety. Their right to life under Article 21 is unconditional. Any regulatory framework that knowingly permits exposure to substances with cumulative toxic effects raises serious constitutional questions.
A State that invokes Mahatma Gandhi’s concern for the poor must also remember his emphasis on protecting the weakest. Children, especially those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, are precisely those least able to protect themselves from invisible risks like chemical leaching.
TOURISM, AND INDIA’S GLOBAL IMAGE
India’s tourism industry—domestic and international—is heavily dependent on bottled water. Advisories to foreign travellers routinely warn against consuming tap water, making packaged water the default option.
What happens when doubts arise about the safety of bottled water itself? Tourism thrives on trust. Even a perception that bottled water in India does not meet global safety norms can damage the country’s reputation. This is not a speculative concern; international travellers are acutely sensitive to health risks, and tour operators factor such risks into destination choices.
Ironically, insisting on WHO-aligned standards would strengthen India’s image as a country serious about public health and consumer safety. Diluting standards in the name of “ground realities” risks achieving the opposite.
The PIL did not ask for blind adoption of foreign norms. It invoked Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which mandates that international standards be considered while framing domestic regulations. The word “consider” does not mean “ignore”.
Regulatory autonomy does not imply regulatory isolation. India routinely aligns with global benchmarks in aviation, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Public health should not be treated differently simply because the affected harm is gradual rather than immediate.
Moreover, the petition sought interim adoption of WHO norms only until a scientifically robust revision could be undertaken. It also demanded transparency, risk assessment, and public awareness— hardly unreasonable demands in a democratic society.
WHAT IS THE WAY OUT?
The dilemma facing the common Indian is stark. Tap water is unsafe in most regions. Bottled water, marketed as a safe alternative, may carry long-term health risks. The regulatory bodies tasked with protecting consumers appear defensive rather than proactive.
The way forward lies in three clear steps:
- Raising, Not Lowering, Standards: India must progressively align with global best practices, even if implementation is phased. Safety standards should represent aspiration, not compromise.
- Strengthening Enforcement And Accountability: Standards are meaningless without enforcement. Independent audits, transparent testing data, and stringent penalties for violations are essential.
- Public Awareness And Informed Choice: Citizens have a right to know what they are consuming. Labelling requirements and public health advisories should be strengthened, not resisted.
Ultimately, the choice is not between elitism and realism. It is between complacency and constitutional responsibility.
India’s ground realities are complex, unequal, and often harsh. But they should serve as a floor for policy intervention, not a ceiling for ambition. To accept lower safety standards because poverty exists is to institutionalise inequality in the most intimate aspect of life—what we put into our bodies.
The poor do not need fewer protections; they need more. The Constitution does not permit a hierarchy of human worth based on economic status. When the State regulates drinking water, it regulates life itself. That responsibility cannot be diluted by invoking poverty, nor can legitimate health concerns be dismissed as the anxieties of the privileged.
In a country striving to be a global power, settling for less should never be mistaken for realism.
The post Water: Elitist vs the Poor appeared first on India Legal.