Judgment No. SC 54/2018 Case No. SC 228/14 or oppressive. In the present context, I am unable to discern any such grossly unreasonable feature in the operation or application of the Bye-laws under scrutiny. In the final analysis, I take the view that the 1913 Bye-laws, regarded as a whole, are not only compliant with and intra vires the enabling provisions of the Urban Councils Act but also perfectly concordant with the overarching notions of reasonableness. Whether Bye-laws are Unconstitutional In the context of a constitutional framework within which the right to water is not explicitly articulated, the right is often subsumed under the broader rubric of the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment and sustainable development implicit in the right to life. The right to fresh air, clean water and a pollution-free environment is perceived to derive from the inalienable common law right to a clean environment. See, for instance, the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 and Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664. In South Africa, s 27 of the Constitution expressly provides for a right to have access to health care, food, sufficient water and social security. Insofar as concerns water, s 27(1)(a) dictates that “everyone has the right to have access to …. sufficient …. water”, while s 27(2) enjoins the State to “take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation” of this right. DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS e-mail: veritas@mango.zw; website: www.veritaszim.net Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. 23