On February 27, 2025, the High Court Division delivered a landmark judgment on Suo-Motu Rule 09/2020, a bench comprising Justice Md Ashraful Kamal and Justice Kazi Waliul Islam which declared that access to safe and potable water is an inherent component of the Right to Life under Article 32 of the Constitution.
This judicial pronouncement, published on January 1, 2026, signifies a paradigm shift in our legal landscape, moving water from the realm of social welfare to the status of an enforceable constitutional guarantee.
Fundamental rights are the bedrock of a civilized society, serving as the ultimate protection against the arbitrary exercise of state power. Unlike ordinary legal rights, which can be modified or repealed by a simple act of parliament, fundamental rights are entrenched in the Constitution.
The elevation of safe water to a fundamental right makes it “justiciable.” This implies that any citizen, from a slum dweller in Dhaka to a farmer in the Barind tract, can approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 102 if the state fails to provide this basic necessity. It recognizes that certain conditions are so essential to human dignity that their absence constitutes a violation of the "right to life."
In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly, through Resolution 64/292, explicitly recognized the human rights to water and sanitation as essential to the realization of all human rights. By enshrining this in our constitutional framework, the High Court has elevated Bangladesh to the vanguard of nations -- such as Bolivia, Costa Rica, and Slovenia -- that treat water as a public trust rather than a tradable commodity.
The High Court’s ruling is a direct response to the "institutional silence" that has often characterized the state’s approach to water governance. While the Bangladesh Water Act 2013 lists potable water as the "highest priority right," implementation has historically been fragmented and hindered by a lack of political will. By linking water to Article 32, the Court has effectively transformed an aspirational policy into a non-negotiable legal obligation.
The most critical question following this verdict is how the government should implement it. A fundamental right is only as strong as its implementation.
The High Court has not merely made a declaration; it has issued a series of "continuing orders" that serve as a roadmap for the executive branch. To fulfil this constitutional command, the government must move from a model of "provision by project" to a "provision by right."
First, the government must ensure universal access in public spaces by the one-year deadline. This requires an immediate audit of all railway stations, bus terminals, hospitals, and marketplaces. Every public hub must be equipped with high-quality filtration systems and water fountains accessible to all, including people with disabilities.
The state must move away from the current "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) approach as the primary funding mechanism for such facilities and instead allocate dedicated, recurring budget lines for the maintenance and operation of public water points.
Second, the ten-year horizon for universal potable water requires a significant infrastructure overhaul. This is particularly urgent in the “hard to reach areas” -- the coastal belts, the hill tracts, and the char lands.
In places such as Satkhira and Khulna, where groundwater is saline and surface water is polluted, the government must scale up community-managed desalination plants and rainwater-harvesting systems.
The state must also address the "urban-rural divide" in water quality, ensuring that the quality of water in a remote village in Rangpur is as high as that in a high-end neighbourhood in Dhaka.
Third, the government must adopt a human rights-based approach (HRBA) to water governance. This means prioritizing the needs of the most marginalized - women, children, and the extreme poor - who spend the most significant portion of their income or time on water.
In urban slums, the practice of charging residents higher "informal" water rates because they lack legal tenure must end. The state should implement a "lifeline tariff" system, under which a basic amount of safe water is provided free of charge or at a highly subsidized rate, as recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water.
Why is this state action so urgent?
Look to our hospitals. High salinity in coastal drinking water is directly linked to soaring rates of cardiovascular diseases and reproductive health crises among women. In many coastal sub-districts, women report spending up to six hours a day fetching water -- time stolen from education and work.
There are harrowing accounts of girls in the coastal belt who suffer from chronic infections because they are forced to use saline water for menstrual hygiene. These are not just "health issues" but constitutional failures.
The High Court has also mandated the protection of all water bodies from pollution and encroachment. This is a call for the government to take a stand against the powerful interests that treat our rivers and wetlands as private dumping grounds.
The National River Conservation Commission and the Ministry of Environment must be empowered to take criminal action against polluters. The Court’s directive to map all wetlands using digital technology is a vital step toward preventing the "land-grabbing" that often precedes water scarcity.
Furthermore, the government must reassess the risks of water privatization. Global precedents in South Africa and the United Kingdom indicate that when water is managed for profit, the poorest are often excluded.
The state remains the ultimate custodian of this resource. While private sector participation may be necessary for technology and financing, the control, pricing, and distribution of water must remain under strict public oversight to ensure that the "right to life" is never traded for a corporate dividend.
The High Court has directed the government to submit a progress report by February 27, 2026. This is a deadline for our dignity as a nation. Moving beyond the "charity" mindset, now, safe water is a debt the state owes its citizens. The Court has given us the legal standing - use it to hold the administration accountable.
Citizens must understand that water is their right. If the tap is dry or the water is dark, the state is violating the Constitution. As we march toward the ten-year goal of universal safe water, let us remember that the strength of a nation is not found in its military or its currency, but in the health and vitality of its people.
The "jurisprudence of life" has arrived in our courts; it is now time for it to arrive in our pipes, our pitchers, and our lives. The life of Rahima Begum, the health of Sharifa’s child, and the future of every Bangladeshi depend on the state fulfilling this sacred constitutional command.
Fayazuddin Ahmad is an Advocate and Development Professional.
