The issues went further to the Constitutional Court, which held that the duty created by the constitution required that the state take reasonable legislative and other measures progressively to realise the achievement of the right to access of water, within its available resource. the Constitutional Court also held that it is a matter for the legislature and executive institution of government to act within the allowance of their budgets and that the scrutiny of their programs is a matter of democratic accountability. Therefore, the minimum content set out by the regulation 3(b) is constitutional, rendering the bodies to deviate upwards and further it is inappropriate for a court to determine the achievement of any social and economic right the government has taken steps to implement. The courts had instead focused their inquiry on whether the steps taken by Government are reasonable, and whether the Government subjects its policies to regular review. The judgment has been criticized for deploying an "unnecessarily limiting concept of judicial deference."