The Karnataka High Court on Friday (September 18) expressed strong displeasure over the State Executive's failure to address basic governance issues, observing that courts cannot be burdened with the task of managing essential public services such as drinking water supply and construction of infrastructure.

The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekanada made the observations while hearing two PILs— one concerning the release of water through the Madalur Interlinking Feeder Channel in Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District, and the other concerning construction of a bridge over the Devanadi River in Bidar District.

The Bench expressed concern over citizens repeatedly approaching courts for matters that fall within the domain of the executive, observing that administration was effectively being conducted through courts because authorities were failing to act.

Drinking Water Supply

In WP 4656/2020, the petitioners sought directions to release 0.4 TMC of water through the Kallambella Tank to the Madalur Tank through the Madalur Interlinking Feeder Channel every year and to provide safe and potable drinking water to villages covered by the project.

When the petitioners submitted that access to drinking water is a fundamental right, including under international law, the Bench orally observed that the issue primarily concerned the executive.

The Court said:

“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. We just want a report as to how it is managed by the executive. It is the sovereign function of the executive. These are core administrative issues. Executive government—why is it there for?”

The Bench further directed the authorities to place details regarding the present condition of water supply before the Court.

Bridge Construction

In WP 6321/2022, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the authorities to consider representations made in 2021 seeking construction of a bridge over the Devanadi River in Kamalanagara Taluk, Bidar District, connecting the area with a village in Maharashtra.

Taking note that the PIL had remained pending for nearly five years without any progress, the Bench questioned why the matter had been brought before the Court instead of being addressed by the administration.

“For 5 years this PIL is pending… This is the administration being conducted through courts. Because you don't act.”

The Court said 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.

It noted that the request had been made repeatedly since 2019 and observed that 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 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: “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 observed that instead of requiring citizens to approach it repeatedly, the authorities should address their requests.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in another writ petition, which was disposed of in April 2019 with a direction to consider the representation. After the Bidar District authorities allegedly failed to comply, a contempt petition was filed. The contempt proceedings were disposed of in 2021 after the authorities gave an undertaking.

The present petition was thereafter filed seeking fresh directions.

The Bench directed the State Government Advocate to obtain proper instructions from the authorities and listed the matter after three weeks.

Case Title: R. Jayaramaiah & Others v. State of Karnataka & Other AND Gurunath Vadde v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case Title: WP 4656/2020 and WP 6321/2022