Back
Slams State Executive for Failing to Act on Drinking Water and Bridges
The delivered a sharp rebuke to the State Executive on Friday, observing that courts cannot be saddled with the responsibility of managing essential public services such as drinking water supply and infrastructure construction. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda made the remarks while hearing two separate (PILs)—one concerning the release of water through the Madalur Interlinking Feeder Channel in Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, and the other seeking the construction of a bridge over the Devanadi River in Bidar District.
The court expressed deep concern over the increasing tendency of citizens to approach the judiciary for matters that fall squarely within the domain of the executive. “Administration is effectively being conducted through courts because authorities are failing to act,” the Bench observed, setting the tone for a hearing that highlighted systemic governance failures.
The Drinking Water Conundrum: A Left to Courts
In WP 4656/2020, the petitioners sought directions to release 0.4 TMC of water through the Kallambella Tank to the Madalur Tank via the Madalur Interlinking Feeder Channel every year, and to ensure safe and potable drinking water to villages covered by the project. The petitioners argued that access to drinking water is a under , and also recognized under international law.
The court, while acknowledging the importance of the right, was unequivocal that the primary responsibility lies with the executive. “We don't want to involve in the nitty-gritty of this. We only want an assurance from the executive that this will be managed. Courts can't be mulcted with the function of managing drinking water,” the Bench orally observed. It further noted: “We just want a report as to how it is managed by the executive. It is the of the executive. These are . Executive government—why is it there for?”
The court directed the authorities to place details regarding the present condition of water supply before it, effectively putting the onus back on the State to demonstrate its commitment to the welfare of its citizens. The observation underscores a growing judicial frustration with the executive’s abdication of its constitutional duties, forcing courts to micromanage matters that should never reach the docket.
The Bridge Over Devanadi: Five Years of Litigation, No Action
The second PIL, WP 6321/2022, involved a prayer for a directing the authorities to consider representations made in for constructing a bridge over the Devanadi River in Kamalanagara Taluk, Bidar District, connecting the area with a village in Maharashtra. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court in an earlier writ petition, which was disposed of in with a direction to consider the representation. When the Bidar District authorities allegedly failed to comply, a contempt petition was filed, which was disposed of in after the authorities gave an undertaking. Yet, no bridge was built, leading to the present petition.
The court noted with dismay that the PIL had remained pending for nearly five years without any progress. “For 5 years this PIL is pending… This is the administration being conducted through courts. Because you don't act,” the Bench said. It observed that where a complaint or request is made, it should be addressed by the authorities and the person making the request should be taken into confidence. The court highlighted that the request had been made repeatedly since , and the matter had gone through several rounds of litigation because the authorities had failed to act. “Because policy decisions are not taken considering the citizens' needs. So many matters which are absolutely executive before this court…” the Bench remarked.
The court also questioned the State on the role of the judiciary in deciding where infrastructure such as bridges should be constructed. “How do we know where the bridges are to be built? You are taking this to illogical extremes. We are not saying village shouldn't have accessibility. It has to be addressed. But courts can't be mulcted with this…” it added. The Bench concluded: “What is the business of this Court? It is to see that you [Executive] do your functions. If you don't function, this happens.” The court directed the State Government Advocate to obtain proper instructions from the authorities and listed the matter after three weeks.
Legal Analysis: Under Strain
The observations in these two PILs reflect a deeper constitutional malaise: the blurring of lines between the judiciary and the executive. The doctrine of , as enshrined in , assigns distinct roles to each branch. The executive is responsible for day-to-day governance, including providing basic amenities like water and roads. The judiciary’s role is to interpret laws and ensure that the executive acts within its bounds, not to step into its shoes.
However, when the executive fails to act—whether due to bureaucratic inertia, political apathy, or resource constraints—citizens often turn to the courts as a last resort. This has led to a phenomenon colloquially termed “,” though the ’s remarks suggest it is more accurately described as “.” The court’s frustration is palpable: it does not wish to manage drinking water or decide bridge locations, but it is compelled to intervene because the executive refuses to exercise its own power.
The court’s emphasis on “” being the of the executive is legally significant. It reaffirms that fundamental rights, such as the right to life under Article 21, impose a positive obligation on the State to act. But the remedy for enforcing that obligation lies in compelling the executive to act, not in having the judiciary substitute its own decision-making. The court’s direction to the State to provide a report on water management is a classic example of a “” that keeps the matter alive without micromanaging.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a reminder of the limits of PIL jurisdiction. While the Supreme Court has, since the 1980s, expanded the scope of PILs to address systemic failures, the ’s observations signal a growing judicial fatigue. Lawyers may now need to demonstrate that all executive remedies have been exhausted before approaching the court, and that the relief sought is truly beyond the executive’s capacity or willingness to grant.
The case also highlights the importance of contempt proceedings as a tool to enforce compliance. The petitioner in the bridge matter had already obtained a direction to consider the representation and even secured an undertaking from the authorities, yet no action followed. This suggests that the current mechanisms for executive accountability are insufficient. The court’s decision to list the matter after three weeks, rather than dismissing it, indicates a willingness to give the executive one last chance—but with an implicit warning.
From a broader perspective, the judgment underscores the need for administrative reforms that make the executive more responsive. The judiciary cannot be the permanent crutch for a faltering executive. As the court itself noted, the business of the court is to see that the executive does its functions. If the executive fails, the courts will act—but reluctantly.
Conclusion
The ’s strong words in these two PILs are a wake-up call for the State Executive. The court has made it clear that it will not be “mulcted” with the task of managing drinking water or building bridges. The burden of governance rests squarely on the shoulders of the executive, and the judiciary’s patience is wearing thin. As the matters return for hearing in three weeks, all eyes will be on the State to see whether it can demonstrate that it is capable of fulfilling its constitutional obligations without judicial hand-holding. For the legal community, the message is equally clear: the courts are not a substitute for a functioning administration.
