The coral isles of Lakshadweep, to the west of the Malabar coast, had limited ground water resources. Potable water was in short supply, and large scale withdrawals with electric or mechanical pumps could deplete the water sources, causing seepage or intrusion of saline water from the surrounding Arabian Sea. The administration had evolved a scheme to augment water supply, by digging wells and by drawing water from those existing wells to meet increasing needs. This, the petitioners in this case said, would upset the fresh water equilibrium leading to salinity in the available water resources. The administration was said to have taken this decision to extract ground water by using pumps. The petitioners argued that the action of the administration amounted to an invasion of the rights under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. They sought to restrain the administration from implementing the scheme, by the issuance of appropriate writs of directions. The respondents submitted that with the growing need for more water, it was not possible to content with the available sources of supply. Low environmental sanitary conditions and prevalence of water borne diseases made it necessary to introduce a scheme of protected water supply. The available water was of bad quality and purification was necessary. The proposed method ensured against excessive withdrawals and did not jeopardize fresh water equilibrium. Experts however expressed the view that the proposed water supply scheme was not feasible. They therefore suggested other means of augmenting water supply, mainly by harvesting rain water, desalination and reserve osmosis. The court noted that the issue to be determined was how and how much of ground water could be extracted. The administrative agency could not be permitted to make inroads into the fundamental right under Art. 21. The right to life was much more than the right to an animal existence and its attributes were many fold, as life itself. A prioritization of human needs and a new value system had been recognized in these areas. The right to sweet water and the right to free air were attributes of the right to life, for these were the basic elements which sustained life itself. Consistent with the diverse concerns, a methodology, viable technically and meeting the requirements as nearly as possible, had to be evolved for extraction of ground water. Over exploitation of water resources had to be contaminated. The court emphasized that water and rivers had dominated the destiny and fortunes of man. Restrictions would be necessary, even in the shape of statutory regulations. Safeguards had to be evolved to stop withdrawal of ground water at a cut off level, to impose restrictions and introduce a system of effective monitoring at all levels. To decide on the modalities the matter should receive a final look at the hands of the competent Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Environment. If considered necessary, statutory regulations should be made and a responsible agency set up for monitoring the functioning of the system set up.