Question

In which of the following cases the Supreme Court held that water is the basic need for the survival of human beings and is part of right of life and Human Rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

• A. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
• B. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 7 SCALE 34
• C. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development 2020 SCC OnLine SC 687
• D. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118
• A. Philippine Supreme Court
• B. Supreme Court of India
• C. European Court of Justice
• D. Supreme Court of South Africa
• A. First generation rights
• B. Second generation rights
• C. Third generation rights
• D. Fourth generation rights
• A. 1975
• B. 1976
• C. 1977
• D. 1978
• A. In quantum equal to their basic needs
• B. In quantum according to their age
• C. In quantum according to their natural needs
• D. In quantum according to their climatic conditions
• A. Statutory Right
• B. Fundamental Right
• C. Community Right
• D. Individual Privilege

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Principle recognised in M.C. Mehta case.
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that access to clean drinking water is a fundamental right under Article 21, as it is essential for survival and health.
Step 2: Reasoning.
The Court linked the right to life with the right to water, recognising it as part of human rights and the State’s duty to ensure its availability and quality.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Bandhua Mukti Morcha concerned bonded labour and rehabilitation.
- (B) Narmada Bachao Andolan focused on displacement and rehabilitation due to dam construction.
- (C) 2020 MP case related to environmental protection, not specifically the foundational right to water under Article 21.
\[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]

Answer 2

This question asks which Supreme Court decision specifically held that water is a basic need for survival and forms part of the right to life and human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Each option can be tested against what the cited case actually decided.

1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161: This case dealt with the identification and rehabilitation of bonded labourers working in stone quarries, and the Court read Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity and to be free from exploitation. Its core holding is about bonded labour, not about drinking water as a survival need, so it does not fit the question.
2. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 7 SCALE 34: This judgment concerned the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and the rehabilitation of persons displaced by it. Water appears here only as the subject of a development project, not as the basis for recognising an independent fundamental right to water, so this is not the correct match either.
3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 687: This case is concerned with environmental regulation and pollution control obligations of the State rather than laying down the foundational proposition that access to water is itself a facet of the right to life. It postdates the doctrine and does not originate it.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118: Here the Supreme Court directly addressed the question of access to safe and adequate drinking water and held that it is a basic requirement for human survival and health, and therefore forms part of the right to life under Article 21 and is recognised as a human right. This is precisely the proposition the question describes.

Only the fourth case ties water directly to Article 21 as a survival-based human right; the other three decisions address bonded labour, displacement/rehabilitation, and environmental regulation respectively, which are related but distinct issues.

Therefore, the correct answer is M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118.

Answer 3

Step 1: Historical note.
The concept of the right to a healthy environment being recognised as part of the fundamental right to life was first judicially developed by the Philippine Supreme Court before similar developments in other jurisdictions.
Step 2: Relevance to India.
Indian courts later adopted and expanded the doctrine, particularly under Article 21 jurisprudence, drawing inspiration from global precedents including the Philippines.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) While progressive, India was not the first.
- (C) and (D) developed environmental rights later in different contexts.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]

Answer 4

The question asks which court was the first to judicially develop the right to a healthy environment as a component of the fundamental right to life, so each option needs to be checked for chronological priority.

1. Philippine Supreme Court: In Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (1993), the Philippine Supreme Court recognised intergenerational responsibility and read the right to a balanced and healthful ecology into the constitutional right to life, making it one of the earliest and most influential judicial articulations of this link.
2. Supreme Court of India: Indian courts developed a rich environmental jurisprudence under Article 21 from the late 1980s onward, but this development followed and drew upon comparative jurisprudence rather than being the first instance of the doctrine.
3. European Court of Justice: this court's docket has historically centred on EU internal-market and institutional law; a freestanding right to a healthy environment as part of the right to life is not a doctrine this court is credited with originating.
4. Supreme Court of South Africa: South African environmental rights jurisprudence is comparatively recent and largely postdates the Philippine development, and it is generally traced to the post-1996 constitutional order rather than to any pioneering earlier judgment.

Among these, only the Philippine Supreme Court is credited with the earliest judicial recognition of this link, which later courts, including in India, drew upon.

Therefore, the correct answer is Philippine Supreme Court.

Answer 5

Step 1: Understanding classification of human rights.
- First generation rights — Civil and political rights.
- Second generation rights — Economic, social, and cultural rights.
- Third generation rights — Solidarity rights, including environmental rights, right to development, and right to peace.
Step 2: Application.
Environmental rights are collective in nature, transcending national boundaries, and are thus categorised as third generation rights in modern human rights theory.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Hence, option (C) correctly classifies environmental rights.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]

Answer 6

The question tests the classification of rights into generations, and each option needs to be checked against what that generation actually covers.

1. First generation rights: these are civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, the right to vote, and protection from arbitrary detention. They are individual in character and do not describe collective environmental entitlements.
2. Second generation rights: these cover economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to work, education and social security. They too are framed around individual entitlement rather than a shared, collective interest like a clean environment.
3. Third generation rights: these are solidarity or collective rights, including the right to development, the right to peace, and the right to a healthy environment, which by nature belong to communities and peoples rather than to a single rights-holder.
4. Fourth generation rights: this is not a settled or widely recognised category in mainstream human rights classification, and even where the term is used informally, it is not the accepted label for environmental rights.

Because environmental rights are collective and shared rather than individual, they fall squarely within the third category rather than the first, second, or the loosely defined fourth.

Therefore, the correct answer is Third generation rights.

Answer 7

Step 1: Historical context.
The first United Nations Water Conference was held in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in March 1977. It was the first intergovernmental conference devoted exclusively to water resources.
Step 2: Significance.
The conference adopted the Mar del Plata Action Plan, recognising access to drinking water as a basic human right and setting global goals for water supply and sanitation.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) 1975 and (B) 1976 predate the actual event.
- (D) 1978 is after the conference’s adoption.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]

Answer 8

This is a factual date question about the first UN Water Conference, and the four years given can be checked against the actual historical record.

1. 1975: No dedicated intergovernmental UN conference on water resources took place in this year; global attention at this time was still largely on the 1972 Stockholm environment conference.
2. 1976: This year also predates the water conference; it is notable instead for the first UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), a different subject altogether.
3. 1977: The United Nations Water Conference was held in Mar del Plata, Argentina, in March 1977, and it was the first intergovernmental conference devoted solely to water resources, producing the Mar del Plata Action Plan.
4. 1978: By this year the conference had already concluded the year before, so this date is too late to be the answer.

Only 1977 matches the historical record of the Mar del Plata conference, with the other years either preceding it or following its conclusion.

Therefore, the correct answer is 1977.

Answer 9

Step 1: Key language from the resolution.
The UN resolution explicitly states that people have the right to access drinking water “in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs,” linking water rights to fundamental survival requirements.
Step 2: Understanding the scope.
This means water access should be sufficient to meet essential domestic, drinking, and sanitation needs, irrespective of a person’s location or economic status.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) and (C) introduce criteria not mentioned in the resolution.
- (D) “according to climatic conditions” is not part of the original wording.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]

Answer 10

This question turns on the precise wording used in the Mar del Plata resolution regarding access to drinking water, so each option should be measured against that actual text.

1. In quantum equal to their basic needs: this mirrors the resolution's own language, which ties the quantity of water a person is entitled to directly to their essential survival and health requirements, regardless of their social or economic standing.
2. In quantum according to their age: age is not the criterion used in the resolution; water needs were framed around basic human survival, not an age-based scale.
3. In quantum according to their natural needs: this phrase is close but not the operative standard the resolution adopted; the text specifically references basic needs rather than an undefined notion of natural needs.
4. In quantum according to their climatic conditions: climate is not the yardstick used either; the resolution's concern was universal minimum access, not variation by geography or weather.

The resolution's actual formulation ties entitlement to basic survival needs, which rules out the age-based, naturalistic, and climate-based alternatives.

Therefore, the correct answer is In quantum equal to their basic needs.

Answer 11

Step 1: Constitutional basis.
The Supreme Court of India has held in multiple cases, including M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004), that access to clean drinking water is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Step 2: Why Fundamental Right?
Since Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and life cannot be sustained without access to safe drinking water, this right is elevated to the status of a Fundamental Right.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) Statutory Right is conferred by legislation, but here it is recognised directly under the Constitution.
- (C) Community Right is broader but not the specific constitutional classification.
- (D) Individual Privilege is not a legal category for such essential rights.
\[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]

Answer 12

The question asks how the right to access drinking water is legally classified in Indian constitutional law, so each label needs to be tested against how courts have actually treated this right.

1. Statutory Right: a statutory right would exist only because a specific enactment creates and defines it, and could be amended or withdrawn by ordinary legislation. The right to water, however, has been read directly out of the Constitution rather than out of any single statute.
2. Fundamental Right: the Supreme Court, notably in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004), has held that access to clean drinking water is essential for survival and health and therefore falls within the right to life under Article 21, which is a Fundamental Right.
3. Community Right: this label suggests a right held collectively by a defined group, but the water right recognised under Article 21 attaches to every individual as a facet of personal life and dignity, not merely to communities as such.
4. Individual Privilege: a privilege is something that can be granted or withdrawn at discretion, which is the opposite of how courts have treated access to water, that is, as a non-negotiable entitlement flowing from the Constitution.

Because the entitlement is derived from Article 21 itself rather than from ordinary legislation, a collective label, or discretionary grant, its correct constitutional character is that of a Fundamental Right.

Therefore, the correct answer is Fundamental Right.