Supreme Court Declines PIL on Plastic Contaminants in Packaged Water, Calls It ‘Luxury Litigation’

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to revise permissible levels of antimony and Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) in packaged drinking water to align with international benchmarks.

Bench Remarks

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi described the petition as disconnected from the “ground reality” in India, where large populations still face acute drinking water shortages.

“Where is the drinking water in this country? People do not have drinking water. The quality of bottled water will come later on,” said Chief Justice Kant, adding that such petitions represented urban-centric or luxury litigation.

The Bench also questioned the feasibility of implementing standards followed in the United States or Europe, given India’s widespread dependence on groundwater, especially in rural areas.

Petitioner’s Argument

Senior advocate Anita Shenoy, representing architect Sarang Vaman Yadvadkar, argued that India’s regulatory limits for antimony and DEHP in bottled water were significantly higher than WHO thresholds and posed serious health risks, including:

• Cardiovascular issues: arrhythmias, bradycardia

• Respiratory irritation and gastrointestinal distress

• Chronic organ damage: liver, kidney dysfunction, blood sugar and cholesterol changes

The PIL also highlighted that Bureau of Indian Standards and FSSAI norms had diverged over time and were weaker than international standards, creating a potential health hazard.

Court’s Response

Chief Justice Kant urged a broader perspective, emphasizing access to drinking water as a priority over chemical purity in bottled water.

“Tell the petitioner to travel to parts of India where people are still craving for drinking water… then he will understand what India is,” he said, referencing Mahatma Gandhi’s travels to understand rural hardships.

The Bench concluded that the PIL did not reflect the pressing concerns of the majority population, and thus refused to hear the matter further.