Drinking water quality has drawn enormous attention from scientific communities, the industrial sector, and the common public in several countries during the last couple of decades. The scholarship in science and technology studies somehow overlooked this crucial domain. This article attempts to contribute to this gray area by exploring how drinking water quality is understood in Indian water policies, laws, and courtrooms. The article argues that water policies and laws in India were significantly shaped by international treaties and global environmental stewardship. In the courtrooms, the Indian judiciary employed minimum science-based evidence in decision making in the context of drinking water–related cases; rather they used a rights-based approach and minimally engaged with the issue of drinking water quality/standards. Whatever little science used as valid science by the judges in the decision making was entirely expert-based. The reliance of the judges on the scientific expertise of the experts representing regulatory organizations and public institutions was another unique characteristic of the relationship between science and law in India.
AbrahamJ.SheppardJ. (1999). Complacent and conflicting scientific expertise in British and American drug regulation clinical risk assessment of Triazolam. Social Studies of Science, 29, 803-843.
2.
AnandP. B. (2007). Right to water and access to water: An assessment. Journal of International Development, 19, 511-526.
3.
AshfordN. A. (1984). Advisory committees in OSHA and EPA: Their use in regulatory decision making. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 9, 72-82.
4.
AtteridgeA.ShrivastavaM. K.PahujaN.UpadhyayH. (2012). Climate policy in India: What shapes international, national and state policy?Ambio, 41(1), 68-77.
5.
BaderV. (2014). Sciences, politics, and associative democracy: Democratizing science and expertizing democracy. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27, 420-441.
6.
BakkerK. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter-globalization, anti-privatization and the human right to water in the global south. Antipode, 39, 430-455.
7.
BhaduriS.SharmaA. (2014). Public understanding of participation in regulatory decision-making: The case of bottled water quality standards in India. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 472-488.
8.
BhaduriS.SharmaA.TalatN. (2015). Growth of water purification technologies in the era of “regulatory vacuum” in India. Current Science, 108, 1421-1423.
9.
BhutraM. K.SoniA. (2008). Arsenic contamination in drinking water: Problems and solutions. Journal of Indian Council of Chemists, 25(1), 64-67.
10.
BiswasA. K. (2006). Water management for major urban centres. Water Resources Development, 22, 183-197.
11.
BlackM. (2005). The no-nonsence guide to water. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
12.
CarsonR. (1962). The silent spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
13.
ChowdhuryN. (2014). Role of the Indian Supreme Court in shaping technology development. Science Technology & Society, 19(1), 57-77.
14.
ClasenT.Pruss-UstunA.MathersC. D.CummingO.CairncrossS.ColfordJ. M. (2014). Estimating the impact of unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene on the global burden of disease: Evolving and alternative methods. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 19, 884-893.
15.
CockfieldA. J. (2010). Individual autonomy, law, and technology: Should soft determinism guide legal analysis?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(1), 4-8.
16.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235-296.
17.
Productivity Commission. (2000). Arrangements for setting drinking water standards. Canberra, Australia: AusInfo.
18.
CraikN.CulverK.SiebrasseN. (2007). Genetically modified crops and nuisance: Exploring the role of precaution in private law. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27, 202-214.
19.
CulletP. (2009). Water law, poverty, and development: Water sector reforms in India. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20.
CulletP. (2010). Water sector reforms and courts in India: Lessons from the evolving case law. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 19, 328-338.
21.
CulletP. (2012). The groundwater model bill: Rethinking regulation for the primary source of water. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(45), 40-47.
22.
CulletP. (2013). Right to water in India: Plugging conceptual and practical gaps. International Journal of Human Rights, 17(1), 56-78.
23.
CulletP. (2015). Water regulation and public participation in the Indian context. In TigninoM.SangabanaK. (Eds.), Public participation and water resources management: Where do we stand in international law? (pp. 20-29). Paris, France: UNESCO.
24.
CulletP.GuptaJ. (2009). India: Evolution of water law and policy. In DellapennaJ. W.GuptaJ. (Eds.), The evolution of the law and politics of water (pp. 157-174). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Academic.
25.
DaemmrichA. A. (2004). Pharmacopolitics: Drug regulation in the United States and Germany. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
26.
DivanS.RosencranzA. (2001). Environmental law and policy in India. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
27.
DufloE.PandeR. (2007). Dams. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 601-646.
28.
FaulknerA.LangeB.LawlessC. (2012). Introduction: Material worlds: Intersections of law, science, technology, and society. Journal of Law and Society, 39(1), 1-19.
29.
FoltzF. (1999). Science, pollution, and clean drinking water: Choosing between tap water, bottled water, and home purification. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 19, 300-309.
30.
GadgilA. (1998). Drinking water in developing countries. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 23, 253-286.
31.
GadgilM.GuhaR. (1994). Ecological conflicts and the environmental movement in India. Development and Change, 25, 101-136.
32.
GarrettL. (2001). Betrayal of trust: The collapse of global public health. New York, NY: Hyperion.
33.
GleickP. H. (1998). The human right to water. Water Policy, 1, 487-503.
34.
GoldbergS. (1994). Culture clash: Law and science in America. New York, NY: NYU Press.
35.
GujjaB.ShaikH. (2005). A decade for action: Water for life—When will India cover the “uncovered”?Economic and Political Weekly, 40, 1086-1089.
36.
HalffmanW. (2003). Boundaries of regulatory science: Eco/toxicology and aquatic hazards of chemicals in the US, England, and the Netherlands, 1970-1995. Amsterdam, Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
37.
HarveyM. (2015). Drinking water: A socio-economic analysis of historical and societal variation. London: Routledge. .
38.
IyerR. R. (2010). Governance of water: The legal questions. South Asian Survey, 17(1), 147-157.
39.
JasanoffS. S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195-230.
40.
JasanoffS. S. (1995). Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
JasanoffS. (1998). The eye of everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson trial. Social Studies of Science, 28(5-6), 713-740.
42.
JasanoffS. S. (2001). Image and imagination: The formation of global environmental consciousness. In MillerC.EdwardsP. (Eds.), Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance (pp. 309-337). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
JasanoffS. S. (2005a). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
JasanoffS. S. (2005b). Law’s knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings. American Journal of Public Health, 95(Suppl. 1), S49-S58.
45.
JasanoffS. S. (2007). Making order: Law and science in action. In HackettE. J.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 761-786). Cambridge: MIT Press.
46.
JasanoffS. S. (2011). Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17, 621-638.
47.
JasanoffS. S. (2013). A world of experts: Science and global environmental constitutionalism. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 40, 439-452.
48.
JasanoffS. S.NelkinD. (1981). Science, technology, and the limits of judicial competence. Science, New Series, 214, 1211-1215.
49.
KaranP. (1994). Environmental movements in India. Geographical Review, 84(1), 32-41.
50.
LevidowL.MurphyJ.CarrS. (2007). Recasting “substantial equivalence”: Transatlantic governance of GM food. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(1), 26-64.
51.
LodhiaS. (2006). Quality of drinking water in India: Highly neglected at policy level (Working Paper No. 11). Ahmedabad, India: CFDA.
52.
LynchM. (2013). Science, truth, and forensic cultures: The exceptional legal status of DNA evidence. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(1), 60-70.
53.
LynchM.ColeS. (2005). Science and technology studies on trial: Dilemmas of expertise. Social Studies of Science, 35, 269-311.
54.
LynchM.McNallyR. (1999). Science, common sense and common law: Courtroom inquiries and the public understanding of science. Social Epistemology, 13, 183-196.
55.
MahlieW. S. (1945). Good water and human longevity. Scientific Monthly, 60, 455-458.
56.
MajoneG. (1996). Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.
57.
MartinB. (1988). Analyzing the fluoridation controversy: Resources and structures. Social Studies of Science, 18, 331-363.
58.
MartinB.RichardsE. (1995). Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision-making. In JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersenJ. C.PinchT. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 506-526). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
MartireJ. (2010). The troublesome relationship of law and science: Some unanswered questions. Science as Culture, 19, 265-269.
60.
McKenzieD.RayI. (2009). Urban water supply in India: Status, reform options and possible lessons. Water Policy, 11, 442-460.
61.
MeadowsD. H.MeadowsD. L.RandersJ.BehrensW. W.III. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New York, NY: Universe Books.
62.
MillerB. (2014). Scientific consensus and expert testimony in courts: Lessons from the Bendectin litigation. Foundations of Science, 21, 15-33.
63.
MillstoneE.van ZwanenbergP. (2000). A crisis of trust: For science, scientists or for institutions?Nature Medicine, 6, 1307-1308.
64.
MukherjeeA.SenguptaM. K.HossainM. A.AhamedS.LodhD.DasB.. . . ChakrabortiD. (2005). Are some animals more equal than others?Toxicology, 208, 165-169.
65.
NarainV. (2009). Water as a fundamental right: A perspective from India. Vermont Law Review, 34, 917-927.
66.
National Water Policy. (1987). National Water Policy. New Delhi, India: Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources.
67.
National Water Policy. (2002). National Water Policy. New Delhi, India: Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources.
68.
PanickarM. (2007). State responsibility in the drinking water sector: An overview of the Indian scenario (Working Paper). Geneva, Switzerland: International Environmental Law Research Centre.
69.
ParthasarathyS. (2010). Breaking the expertise barrier: Understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Science and Public Policy, 37, 355-367.
70.
RamachandraiahC. (2001). Drinking water as a fundamental right. Economic and Political Weekly, 36 (8), 619-621.
71.
RamanathanU. (1992). Legislating for water: The Indian context (Working Paper). Geneva, Switzerland: International Environmental Law Research Centre.
72.
RaynerS. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 163-170.
73.
SalzmanJ. (2008). Is it safe to drink the water?Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, 19(1), 1-42.
74.
SankarU. (1998, November). Laws and institutions relating to environmental protection in India. Paper presented at the conference on “The Role of Law and Legal Institutions in Asian Economic Development,” Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
75.
ShahT. (2010). Taming the anarchy: Groundwater governance in South Asia. New Delhi, India: Routledge.
76.
ShankarP. S. V.KulkarniH.KrishnanS. (2011). India’s groundwater challenge and the way forward. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(2), 37-45.
77.
ShannonM. A.BohnP. W.ElimelechM.GeorgiadisJ. G.MarinasB. J.MayesA. M. (2008). Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades. Nature, 452, 301-310.
78.
SharmaA. (2009). A study of bottled water quality standards in India. New Delhi, India: Jawaharlal Nehru University.
79.
SharmaA. (2014). Standards, technology and public participation: Regulation making for bottled water quality in India. New Delhi, India: Jawaharlal Nehru University.
80.
SharmaA.BhaduriS. (2013). Consumption conundrum of bottled water in India an STS perspective. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(5-6), 172-181.
81.
SharmaD. C. (2003). India to get new water standards. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(8), 402.
82.
SmithA. H.Hira SmithM. M. (2004). Arsenic drinking water regulations in developing countries with extensive exposure. Toxicology, 198, 39-44.
83.
SolomonS. M.HackettE. J. (1996). Setting boundaries between science and law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21, 131-156.
84.
SwainA. (1997). Democratic consolidation? Environmental movements in India. Asian Survey, 37, 818-832.
85.
SwansonK. (2007). Biotech in court: A legal lesson on the unity of science. Social Studies of Science, 37, 357-384.
86.
ThévenotL. (2009). Governing life by standards: A view from engagements. Social Studies of Science, 39, 793-813.
87.
ThiruvengadamA. K.JoshiP. (2012). Judiciaries as crucial actors in Southern regulatory systems: A case study of Indian telecom regulation. Regulation & Governance, 6(3), 327-343.
88.
TrueloveY. (2011). (Re-) conceptualizing water inequality in Delhi, India, through a feminist political ecology framework. Geoforum, 42, 143-152.
89.
VanderburgW. H. (2007). Technology and the law: Who rules?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27, 322-332.
90.
ViswanathanG.JaswanthA.GopalakrishnanS.Siva IlangoS. (2009). Mapping of fluoride endemic areas and assessment of fluoride exposure. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 1579-1587.
91.
World Health Organization. (2004). Guidelines for drinking-water quality (3rd ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
92.
World Health Organization. (2012). Pharmaceuticals in drinking water. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
93.
ZérahM. H. (2000). Water: Unreliable supply in Delhi. New Delhi, India: Manohar.
