NHRC Seeks Complainant’s Response After Reports Flag Rise in Fluoride-Affected Villages in Telangana

When “Inevitable” Becomes Unacceptable: National Human Rights Commission (Nhrc) Examines “Fluoride Contamination” In Telangana Groundwater

Proceedings recorded in National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Case/File No. 248/36/0/2025 (Diary No. 19/IN/2025) reflect an important instance of environmental health concerns being examined through a human rights lens. The case is presented as relating to environmental pollution in Telangana, with the core allegation that fluoride contamination in Telangana’s groundwater has reached alarming levels, thereby creating a public health risk. The available record on NHRCNet demonstrates that the Commission has already entered into procedural scrutiny, obtained State responses, and has formally decided to involve the complainant at the next stage by calling for comments.

1. Nature and framing of the complaint

As per the “Proceeding” section accessible in the NHRC case status record, the Commission states that it received a complaint on 01.01.2025. The complaint is described as being “about environmental pollution in Telangana,” and the complainant’s allegation is specifically that fluoride contamination in Telangana’s groundwater has reached alarming levels.

The complaint relies on two supporting references:

1. the Annual Ground Water Quality Report, 2024, and
2. a news report from The New Indian Express.

The Commission record further notes that, according to the complainant, this situation poses “severe health risks”. It is also recorded that despite government acknowledgment, the measures to mitigate the crisis remain inadequate, prompting the complainant to seek NHRC intervention.

Thus, the matter is presented not merely as a technical water-quality issue but as a governance and accountability issue—where acknowledged harm and acknowledged risk are alleged to be met with insufficient corrective action.

2. Procedural history: NHRC actions and dates

The NHRC case status shows a clear chain of administrative and procedural steps:

• Complaint/received date: 01.01.2025
• Registration date: 04.04.2025
• Action Taken Report (ATR) called for: 20.06.2025 (to Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana)
• Reminder: 01.08.2025
• Additional information called for: 09.10.2025 (again addressed to the Chief Secretary)
• Comments of complainant called for: 04.12.2025

This sequence indicates that the Commission moved beyond initial receipt by calling for formal reports from the State apparatus and continued follow-up when required.

The “Authority” field indicates that communications were addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, with official address details and email shown in the record.

3. Key findings from Action Taken Reports placed before the Commission

The Commission’s proceeding record notes two key reports received:

(A) District Collector, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District — ATR dated 03.10.2025

The District Collector’s ATR is summarised by the Commission as follows:

• A comparative analysis was undertaken between Post-Monsoon November 2024 and Pre-Monsoon May 2025.
• That comparative analysis shows the number of affected villages increased by 9 villages.

In addition, the Collector’s ATR refers to an “ideal hydro geological condition” where groundwater levels should be maintained at:

• 3m bgl (below ground level) in Post-Monsoon (November), and
• 5m bgl in Pre-Monsoon (May)

The Commission record states that the purpose of such maintenance is to “dilute the concentration of fluoride in the original rock formation.”

This portion is significant because it indicates that the State’s own reporting framework recognises fluoride concentration as linked with hydro-geological conditions and seasonal water levels, and it suggests dilution as a conceptual approach.

(B) Director, Irrigation & CAD (Wrg. GRC) Department, Government of Telangana — report dated 21.11.2025

The Irrigation & CAD report is summarised as stating:

• High fluoride concentrations in groundwater are commonly attributed to geogenic factors, such as:
  • weathering and leaching of fluoride-containing minerals
  • examples listed include fluorite, apatite, biotite
  • leaching from rocks into water
• It is further stated this occurs rather than due to anthropogenic activities.

The report then draws a conclusion:

• “Hence, the presence of fluoride in groundwater is inevitable at the source.”

Additionally, the report includes a broad statement that groundwater studies reveal that groundwater is “predominantly analyzed and recommended for agricultural and domestic suitability.”

Finally, the report highlights the State’s drinking water strategy, stating that drinking water is supplied from alternative sources such as surface water through governmental schemes such as Mission Bhagiratha—with sources listed, including:

• Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal (NSLC)
• Lower Manair Dam (LMD)
• Sriram Sagar Project (SRSP)
• Singoor
• Manjeera
• Nizam Sagar

It also records that protected drinking water is provided through bore wells/open wells/tube wells in the State.

4. NHRC’s preliminary assessment of the dispute

The Commission explicitly records the competing positions:

• The complainant submitted that groundwater contains excess fluoride, posing serious health risks, especially skeletal and dental fluorosis among residents.
• The State’s reports acknowledge the issue but emphasise geogenic causation and assert fluoride presence is “inevitable at the source”, while indicating that drinking water is supplied through alternate sources (surface water schemes).

This captures the central tension of the matter: the complainant describes an escalating public health hazard, while the State responses position the fluoride as naturally occurring and focus on water-supply substitution rather than characterising the matter as a preventable or remediable environmental harm.

5. Direction issued by NHRC: complainant participation and next step

After considering the material placed on record, NHRC passed a procedural direction:

• Copies of both action taken reports (dated 03.10.2025 and 21.11.2025) are to be sent to the complainant.
• The complainant is invited to provide comments, if any, within four weeks.
• This action is recorded as “Comments of Complainant Called for” dated 04.12.2025.

In NHRC procedure, such a step indicates that the Commission is not closing the matter merely upon receipt of State reports. Instead, it is allowing the complainant to respond to the reports—especially to the claim of inevitability and the adequacy of mitigation actions described. The record shows NHRC is positioning itself to decide further course based on a fuller assessment.

6. Why this proceeding is significant from a rights-governance standpoint (based only on the record)

Without introducing external law or interpretation, the NHRC record itself demonstrates a few key realities:

1. Escalation trend is officially acknowledged: the Collector’s report identifies an increase of 9 affected villages between Nov 2024 and May 2025.
2. State explanation relies heavily on natural causation: geogenic origin is used to state that fluoride presence is inevitable.
3. Mitigation approach is primarily alternative water sourcing: emphasis is on Mission Bhagiratha and surface water sources, along with protected supply through wells.
4. NHRC is actively testing adequacy through participation: by supplying ATRs to complainant for comments, NHRC signals further scrutiny, not mechanical acceptance of State action.

Conclusion

The NHRC proceedings in Case No. 248/36/0/2025 reflect an active inquiry into groundwater fluoride contamination as a matter carrying public health consequences. The record documents the complaint basis (Annual Ground Water Quality Report 2024 and a news report), the State’s reporting responses (including the “inevitable at source” claim), and a clear procedural move by the Commission to invite complainant rebuttal before further steps. The case presently stands at a critical stage where the Commission is formally collecting stakeholder responses to evaluate whether the actions described by the State are sufficient in light of the alleged and acknowledged expansion in fluoride-affected villages.

******

* Yennam Balachander Reddy is a practicing Advocate at the Telangana High Court and other Courts in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Email id: advocate.bcreddy@gmail.com  .