Kerala High Court Flags Lack Of Funds, Staff And Infrastructure In Ground Water Authority, Directs Chief Secretary To Fix Deficiencies In Groundwater Regulation
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., in an order dated 11 December, disposed of a public interest petition on groundwater contamination, unsustainable extraction, and tanker lifting from unauthorised water-vending points, and directed the State, through the Chief Secretary, to remedy shortcomings affecting the Kerala Ground Water Authority (KGWA) within three months. The Bench held that the State has a mandatory statutory duty to ensure the KGWA operates as an effective and independent regulator, and that denying it adequate funding, staffing and infrastructure defeats the purpose of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002. The Court required steps to provide a permanent technical cadre, strengthen scientific and technical support, ensure sufficient funds, and expand district-level offices, with compliance to be reported on 12 March 2026.
The writ petition was instituted as a public interest litigation raising concerns regarding groundwater contamination, unsustainable extraction, and unregulated collection and distribution of groundwater through tankers from unauthorised and substandard vending points. The petitioner alleged that these practices posed serious health hazards, particularly in Ernakulam district, one of the most densely populated areas in the State, which was also experiencing saline intrusion and acute drinking water scarcity. It was contended that contamination of groundwater had resulted in the spread of waterborne diseases and that similar conditions prevailed in other parts of Kerala.
The petitioner relied on prior judicial directions issued by the High Court in earlier proceedings relating to depletion of groundwater resources, where authorities were required to regulate groundwater extraction, ensure licensing of commercial users, and prevent illegal digging of wells. It was alleged that despite those directions, statutory authorities had failed to enforce compliance.
The case involved examination of the statutory framework governing groundwater regulation, including the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002 and the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Rules, 2004, which establish and govern the Kerala Ground Water Authority. Affidavits were filed by the State and the Authority detailing the constitution, funding, staffing pattern, meetings, and operational capacity of the Authority, which revealed significant institutional deficiencies.
The Court recorded that the petition stated “contamination, unsustainable withdrawal, and the unregulated collection by tankers from unauthorized and substandard water-vending points causing serious health hazards.” It noted that groundwater scarcity and saline intrusion aggravated the risk posed by unhygienic water supply and that such concerns were not confined to Ernakulam district alone.
The Bench traced the statutory framework and observed that the Kerala Legislature had enacted the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002 after recognising that “indiscriminate extraction of ground water continues in certain areas of the State, and that such erratic extraction is resulting in undesirable environmental consequences.” The Court noted that the Act constituted the State Ground Water Authority as an independent body with wide regulatory, inspection, enforcement, and protective powers.
On examining affidavits filed by the State and the Authority, the Court recorded that although the statute was enacted in 2002, the Authority did not have a separate budget head until April 2025. It observed that the Authority had conducted only five meetings since 2023, which fell short of the mandatory requirement under the Rules that it “shall meet at least once in two months.”
The Court further recorded the candid admission by the Member Secretary that the Authority was “being handicapped for want of infrastructural support.” It noted the absence of a permanent technical cadre, shortage of scientists and technicians, lack of vehicles and pumping test units, and inadequate district-level offices. The Bench observed that “the Authority entrusted with regulating ground water exploitation in Kerala remains unable to perform its mandated functions effectively due to inadequate infrastructure and institutional capacity.”
The Court stated that groundwater regulation was “intrinsically connected with human life” and that under-performance of the Authority would frustrate the legislative intent behind the Act. It recorded that the State had a statutory obligation to ensure proper functioning of the Authority and that failure to operationalise it defeated the very purpose of the legislation.
The Court directed the State of Kerala, through the Chief Secretary, to address the deficiencies faced by the Kerala Ground Water Authority, “more particularly (i) the absence of a permanent cadre of technical staff in the State Ground Water Authority; (ii) the shortage of scientists and technicians required for the effective functioning of the Authority; (iii) inadequate allocation of funds for the activities of the Authority; and (iv) insufficient number of Water Authority offices in each district.”
The Chief Secretary “will take the necessary steps and issue directions to substantially redress the above-mentioned deficiencies within three months.” The writ petition stood disposed of in the above terms and that the matter be “listed on 12 March 2026, for reporting compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. K. K. Ashkar, Advocate; Smt. Ashira Mohamed Ashrof, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. P. I. Davis, Special Government Pleader; Sri. T. Naveen, Advocate; Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, Advocate; Smt. Nayana Varghese, Advocate; Ms. Anjana Kannath, Amicus Curiae
Case Title: Shanavas S.N. v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:95421
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 40728 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar; Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
