2,000 Gorai families, 4 tankers: the Bombay High Court did the math.

Two thousand families. Four tankers. The Bombay High Court did the math.

When the Gorai Villagers Welfare Association approached the Bombay High Court in May 2024, they were not asking for a new pipeline or a grand reservoir. They were asking for water. Potable water. For roughly 2005 families living in Gorai, a locality in northwest Mumbai. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) had admitted that construction of an underground tank and suction pump had disrupted the supply. But the interim measure—just four water tankers for over two thousand families—was, in the Court's view, a constitutional failure.

Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor, sitting on the bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, did not merely express concern. They issued an interim order that changed the arithmetic: ten tankers, each of 10,000 litres, every single day, with quality assurance, until the infrastructure work is complete. The case, PIL (L) No. 15255 of 2024, is a sharp reminder that the right to water is not a policy aspiration—it is a constitutional command.

What the BMC admitted

The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner, Gorai Villagers Welfare Association, represented residents who had been struggling for months. The BMC did not deny the problem. In its response, the Corporation stated that construction of an underground tank and suction pump was underway, and that the work was expected to be completed by the end of the year. Until then, water supply was being arranged through tankers.

But the scale was the problem. Four tankers. For over 2000 families. The Court found this "grossly insufficient." The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the residents were being forced to queue for hours, and that the water supplied was often untreated. The BMC's own admission that construction was ongoing did not excuse the inadequacy of the interim arrangement.

The constitutional duty the Court invoked

The Bench did not rely on a mere policy circular. It went to the root. Article 243-W(a)(ii) of the Constitution of India, read with Entry 5 of the Twelfth Schedule, imposes a clear duty on Municipalities: water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes. The Court observed that after the insertion of Part IX-A into the Constitution with effect from 1st June 1993, Municipalities have assumed a constitutional status—elevating them from purely statutory bodies to constitutionally recognized institutions of self-governance.

This is not a minor point. It means that the duty to supply potable water is not merely a statutory obligation under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. It is a constitutional mandate. Section 61(b) of that Act reinforces the duty, but the Court's reasoning placed the obligation squarely within the constitutional framework. No Municipal Corporation, the Bench held, can shirk this responsibility. Supply of potable water for domestic use must receive the highest priority.

The witness rule the Supreme Court applied

Here, the Court applied a simple but powerful principle: where a Municipal Corporation's ongoing infrastructure work disrupts water supply to residents, interim measures must be adequate and proportionate to the affected population. Four tankers for over 2000 families is not adequate. It is not proportionate. It is, in the Court's words, insufficient.

The Bench directed the BMC to deploy ten tankers per day, each of 10,000 litres capacity, with uninterrupted and quality-assured supply until construction is completed. The order also directed the respondents—including the Hydraulic Engineer of the Municipal Commission of Greater Mumbai—to file affidavits-in-reply within six weeks. The petitioner gets two weeks thereafter for rejoinder. The matter is listed for further hearing on 3rd July 2024.

THE PLAY: If your municipal corporation is building infrastructure that disrupts water supply, the interim measure must match the population affected. Four tankers for 2000 families is a constitutional violation. Ten tankers of 10,000 litres each is the floor, not the ceiling.

Why this matters for every advocate, CFO, and founder

For advocates, this judgment is a template. It shows how to frame a PIL around a constitutional duty rather than a mere statutory breach. The ratio is clear: Article 243-W read with the Twelfth Schedule creates an enforceable obligation. The Court did not wait for evidence of contamination or disease. It acted on the arithmetic of inadequacy.

For CFOs and founders of companies that operate in municipal areas—especially those with large workforces or residential colonies—this judgment is a warning. If your infrastructure projects disrupt water supply to surrounding communities, you cannot hide behind "work in progress." The Court will look at the numbers. If the interim arrangement is insufficient, you will be directed to scale up. And the order will be immediate.

For startup founders building in the water-tech or civic infrastructure space, the judgment signals a judicial appetite for accountability. The Court did not accept the BMC's assurance that construction would be completed by year-end. It demanded an interim solution that works now. That is a market signal: solutions that provide rapid, scalable, quality-assured water supply in disruption scenarios will find a receptive judicial audience.

The obiter that could reshape municipal law

The Bench made an observation that, while not strictly necessary for the decision, carries significant future weight. After the insertion of Part IX-A, Municipalities have assumed a constitutional status. This framing strengthens arguments that municipal duties regarding essential services are constitutionally enforceable rather than merely directory statutory obligations. In future PILs concerning municipal services—whether it is sanitation, street lighting, or drainage—this observation can be invoked to argue that the duty is not optional. It is constitutional.

That is a powerful tool for public interest litigators. It means that a municipal corporation cannot argue that it is doing its "best" or that resources are limited. The constitutional duty is absolute. The only question is whether the measure is adequate and proportionate.

The bottom line

The Bombay High Court has made it clear: when a municipal corporation disrupts water supply, it must provide an interim arrangement that is adequate for the affected population. Four tankers for 2000 families is not adequate. Ten tankers of 10,000 litres each, with quality assurance, is the minimum. And the duty is constitutional, not merely statutory. If you are a municipal official, a contractor, or a corporate entity involved in infrastructure that affects water supply, take note: the Court will do the math. And it will hold you to it.