“All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water in quantum and of a quality equal to their basic needs.” Thus, the right to access to drinking water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on the State under Article 21 to provide clean drinking water to its citizens. There is, therefore, need to take into account the right to a healthy environment along with the right to sustainable development and balance them. Competing Human Rights to healthy environment and sustainable development.
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?
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 7 SCALE 34
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development 2020 SCC OnLine SC 687
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Which of the following Courts was the first court to develop the concept of right to healthy environment as part of the Fundamental Right to life?
- Philippine Supreme Court
- Supreme Court of India
- European Court of Justice
- Supreme Court of South Africa
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The concept of the right to a healthy environment as part of the Fundamental Right to life was first developed by the Supreme Court of India. This was established under the broad interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Indian judiciary has expanded this right to include the right to a clean and healthy environment, recognizing its essential role in ensuring a dignified life.
Article 21 states:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
The Supreme Court of India, in numerous landmark judgments, has upheld that the right to life includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. This perspective aligns with global human rights efforts, noting the country's commitment, as a party to the United Nations Water Conference resolution, to ensure access to clean drinking water and a healthy environment.
By interpreting environmental rights as integral to life, the Supreme Court of India established a model for other judiciaries to follow, emphasizing sustainable development and the importance of balancing environmental protection with other fundamental rights.
In today’s emerging Jurisprudence, Environmental rights which encompass a group of collective rights are described as:
- First generation rights
- Second generation rights
- Third generation rights
- Fourth generation rights
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
When was the first United Nations Water Conference held?
- 1975
- 1976
- 1977
- 1978
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The resolution of the UNO passed during the United Nations Water Conference as- All people, whatever their stage of development and their social and economic conditions, have the right to have access to drinking water:
- In quantum equal to their basic needs
- In quantum according to their age
- In quantum according to their natural needs
- In quantum according to their climatic conditions
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
- In quantum equal to their basic needs
- In quantum according to their age
- In quantum according to their natural needs
- In quantum according to their climatic conditions
The right to access drinking water is a:
- Statutory Right
- Fundamental Right
- Community Right
- Individual Privilege
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
In the context of the Indian legal framework, the right to access drinking water is considered a Fundamental Right. This is derived from the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures the protection of life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court of India has widened the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a healthy environment and access to clean drinking water as integral to the right to life.
India's commitment is further demonstrated through its participation in international initiatives, such as the United Nations Water Conference, which recognizes the universal right to access safe and sufficient drinking water, regardless of development stage or socio-economic status. This establishes a global standard that clean drinking water is essential and a recognized right at the fundamental level.
Therefore, based on this legal interpretation and international commitment, the correct categorization for the right to access drinking water is a Fundamental Right.
Top CLAT PG Questions
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts