Environment Law — Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, Rr. 2(1)(g), 4(2)(vi) — Definition of “wetland” — Exclusion of man-made waterbodies — Applicability to Futala Lake (Tank), Nagpur — Held, Futala Lake being a man-made waterbody constructed in 1799 for irrigation and drinking water purposes, falls outside the statutory definition of “wetland” under R. 2(1)(g).
The definition expressly excludes human-made tanks or waterbodies constructed for drinking water, recreation or irrigation purposes. Futala Tank, being constructed by the then ruler for irrigation and drinking purposes, cannot be treated as a statutory “wetland” so as to attract the restrictions of R. 4(2) of the 2017 Rules. (Paras 5.3.1-5.4)
— Construction of recreational and beautification facilities — Legality — “Permanent structure” under R. 4(2)(vi) — Determination — Floating Banyan Tree structure held temporary.
On facts, the Viewer’s Gallery constructed on the bund road did not disturb the lake precinct and was situated 4 metres above dam level; the floating restaurant, platform and artificial Banyan Tree were found not to be permanent constructions. The Banyan Tree, used as 3D multimedia show screen, rested on kerb stones (350 tonnes) without foundational embedding in lake bed, occupying only 0.51% of lake area, and was removable. It was therefore temporary in nature and could not be termed a “permanent structure” within the meaning of R. 4(2)(vi). (Paras 5.2.2-5.2.5)
— Wetland restrictions — Applicability to inventorised but undeclared lakes — Principle in M.K. Balakrishnan case applied.
Though Futala Tank not a declared wetland under 2017 Rules, it being inventorised in the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA) 2011, the principles of R. 4 of 2017 Rules would still apply in spirit, pursuant to M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 230 of 2001, orders dated 08-02-2017 and 04-10-2017, and MoEF&CC O.M. dated 08-03-2022. Hence, permanent constructions within the lake prohibited and authorities directed to ensure preservation of ecological integrity. (Paras 5.6-5.7)
— Doctrine of Public Trust — Scope and extension — Applicability to man-made waterbodies.
Doctrine of public trust, founded on Arts. 48-A and 51-A(g), is not limited to natural waterbodies but extends equally to man-made or artificial waterbodies and other natural resources created from nature, which contribute to ecology and environment. The principle obligates the State to preserve and maintain such bodies for public good and ecological balance. (Paras 6-9; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, applied)
— Sustainable development and environmental protection — Balancing exercise.
Directions of the High Court requiring maintenance of Futala Lake, prohibition on permanent structures, and ensuring ecological protection while permitting public use for recreation and beautification, held proper and balanced. (Paras 5.8-10)
Held :
Futala Tank not a “wetland” under R. 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. Recreational constructions approved by competent authorities were not permanent in nature. High Court’s directions to preserve ecological balance and prevent permanent constructions are proper. Appeal dismissed.
2025 INSC 1199 Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.1420 OF 2024)
SWACCH ASSOCIATION, NAGPUR
…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
1.1 Heard learned Senor Advocate Mr. Gopal
Sankaranarayanan for the appellant, learned Solicitor General
Mr. Tushar Mehta for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8, learned
Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati for
Page 1 of 24
respondent Nos.8 and 9, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shekhar
Naphade for respondent No.3, learned Senior Advocate Mr.
S.K. Mishra for respondent No.4, learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Dama Seshadri Naidu for respondent No.5, learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi for respondent No.6, learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul for the intervenor,
along with the respective assisting learned advocates, at
length.
2. The appellant-original petitioner addresses challenge
to the judgement and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay1
, whereby the
High Court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation No.4 of
2023 with certain observations and directions, declining to
grant prayers made in the petition.
2.1 The petition before the High Court was filed by the
appellant-Swacch Association-an organisation registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as also under the
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, claiming to be a body
engaged in the green practices and for promoting a healthy
environment, in which a grievance was raised in respect of
certain constructions and recreational activities set up in and
around the Futala Lake2
in Nagpur City, Maharashtra. The
case put forward by the appellant was that the said Futala
1 Hereinafter, “High Court”.
2 Hereinafter, “Futala Tank”
Page 2 of 24
Lake was a ‘wetland’ and it ought to be protected for its
environmental value and that the constructions which were
made thereat were of permanent nature.
2.2 What was prayed was to declare that the installation
of Musical Fountain and machinery thereof inside the body of
the Futala Lake was illegal and against the public trust
principle. It was further prayed to declare that the
construction of the Viewer’s Gallery on the bank of the Futala
Tank was also illegal. The third prayer was for issuance of
direction against respondent No.5-Nagpur Metropolitan
Regional Development Authority to remove the Musical
Fountain and the related set-up installed inside the body of
the Futala Tank and to restore the Tank to its original state.
2.3 The fourth prayer was advanced for directing
respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation Nagpur and
respondent No.4- Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation to
demolish the viewer’s gallery. Yet another prayer was made to
declare that the construction of the Parking Plaza on the land
bearing Khasra No.13/3 at Mauje Futala was contrary to the
zone shown in the sanctioned development plan for Nagpur.
Also, a direction was sought against respondent Nos.3 and 4
to demolish the building which was under construction on the
said land.
Page 3 of 24
2.4 Interim prayers were made seeking a restraint order
against respondent No.4 from carrying out further
construction of the Parking Plaza as also against respondent
No.5 from holding of Musical Fountain Show, Laser Show and
Multimedia Show at the Futala Tank.
3. The case of the appellant before the High Court and
further emphasised before this Court was inter alia that in the
guise of beautification and in the name of recreational
activities for the people, the respondent authorities had
proceeded to construct and erect the Viewer’s Gallery on the
bank of the Futala Tank and had installed Musical Fountain in
the body of the Tank. It was the grievance of the appellant
that the construction of nine storeyed building near the Futala
Tank was proposed for parking, food court, etc. and that
erected there was a Floating Restaurant, artificial Banyan Tree
and a Musical Fountain inside the body of the lake.
3.1 It was contended that the Futala Lake was identified
as ‘wetland’ in the map of Wetland Atlas of Maharashtra
which was part of National Wetland Atlas. It was further
claimed that the Lake is a ‘wetland’ within the meaning of
Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management)
Rules, 20173
, therefore the restrictions contained in Rule 4(2)
(vi) of the 2017 Rules would apply, more particularly in the
3 Hereinafter, “2017 Rules”.
Page 4 of 24
present case the prohibition contained in Rule 4(1)(iv) would
operate.
3.2 It was stated that in the National Wetland Inventory
as carried out by Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad under
the project “National Wetland Inventory and Assessment
(“NWIA)” funded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change, Government of India, the Futala Tank was
mentioned amongst 2,01,503 wetlands in the inventory list.
The definition of wetland provided in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017
Rules has been wrongly construed by the High Court.
3.3 It was the case of the appellant that not only those
prohibitions were given a go-by in creating recreational and
beautification projects at the lake site, but the Construction
Rules and the norm of minimum Fifteen meters’ distance for
any construction from a waterbody were also violated. It was
further contended that in the sanctioned development project
of Nagpur City, the proposed construction between the Futala
Tank and eighteen metres road was permissible, however the
construction was found to be on the Pali (boundary wall) of
the Futala Tank.
3.4 It was next contended that the setting up of artificial
Banyan Tree was a permanent construction inside the
waterbody which was not only in breach of the prohibitory
Page 5 of 24
rules, but also it has a damaging effect to the Lake. It was the
case that a waterbody of Futala Tank- a ‘wetland’, was
exploited for commercial purposes without caring for adverse
ecological effect.
3.5 It was pleaded that under Article 21 of the
Constitution, right to life has been given an expanded
interpretation by this Court to include the right to clean air,
clear water, clean environment, hygienic atmosphere and
ecological balance. Article 48-A of the Constitution lays down
the duty of the State to protect, safeguard and improve the
environment and safeguard forest and wildlife, in addition to
Article 51-A (g) of the Constitution which casts a duty on
every citizen to protect the natural environment including
lakes and rivers.
3.6 The appellant then referred to the principle of public
trust enunciated by this Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal
Nath & Ors.4
It was submitted that the construction of
Viewer’s Gallery on the Futala Tank would change the nature
of the waterbody as well as its use, to take away its
environmental value. It was submitted that the activities
permitted in and around the tank run contrary to the doctrine
of public trust.
4 (1997) 1 SCC 388
Page 6 of 24
3.7 It may be mentioned that the High Court by a
reasoned order dated 05.07.2023 refused to grant any interim
relief to the appellant. The prima facie finding was recorded in
the interim order that the Futala Lake does not fall within the
purview of Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. However, the High
Court observed that since the lake was mentioned as
‘wetland’ in the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment
(NWIA), prohibition in Rule 4(2)(vi) of 2017 Rules deserves to
be treated as relevant to protect the lake.
4. Respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation Nagpur,
respondent No.4-Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation and
respondent No.5- Nagpur Metropolitan Regional Development
Authority filed their replies and placed materials before this
Court also in the present proceedings to refute the case and
allegations of the appellant.
5. The following facts which are not disputed, go to
show that the competent authorities granted various
permissions for the projects and recreational facilities at
Futala Lake, which were in accordance with the Rules and the
norms.
(a) For Viewer’s Gallery, plans were submitted on
29.08.2019 which were sanctioned by the Municipal
Corporation Nagpur on 18.10.2019. The Heritage
Committee granted sanction on 29.09.2018 and the
Page 7 of 24
revised plan was sanctioned on 15.06.2021, in
accordance with which the work was executed.
(b) The Parking Plaza plan was sanctioned by the Town
Planning Department, Nagpur Municipal Corporation on
01.09.2022. The Heritage Committee also approved the
parking plaza construction. It was thereafter that the
Environmental Management Plan and the Dam Stability
reports were submitted. The Heritage Committee again
sanctioned the proposal on 30.06.2022.
(c) The Floating Stage-cum-Floating Banquet was
permitted as per the No Objection Certificate (NOC)
received on the different occasions on 07.03.2022,
21.03.2022 and 08.04.2022 from the Public Works
Department. Similarly, NOCs were received from Group
Captain, Commanding Officer, HQ Maintenance
Command (Unit) on 22.09.2022, from District Deputy
Commissioner of Animal Husbandry, Nagpur on
28.04.2022, from Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries
Department, Nagpur on 23.05.2022, from the authority
of the Heritage Conservation Committee, Nagpur on
20.07.2022, from Nagpur Municipal Commissioner,
Nagpur on 10.05.2022 and also from the City Police
Commissioner, Nagpur on 03.12.2022. Thus, the
competent authorities have sanctioned the project.
Page 8 of 24
(d) The artificial Banyan Tree is a part of Multimedia
Show for which also admittedly, NOC was obtained from
the authorities mentioned above, including the local
authority.
(e) In respect of alleged utilization of land bearing
Number 13/3 Mauje Futala, the Forest Department
through Office of the Deputy Conservation Officer,
Nagpur by communication dated 01.03.2024, stated
that the said land was not a forest land. It was occupied
by Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural University
which used to grow saplings thereon.
(f) The Parking Plaza is not set up in the agricultural
zone. It was given out that as per the applicable
Regulation, the development of parking plaza upto 0.2
FSI of the gross plot area is permissible and that the
competent authority has sanctioned the building plan
accordingly in compliance with the norm.
(g) By Notification dated 15.10.2003, the State
Government sanctioned the ‘Regulations for conservation
of building, artefacts, structures, areas and precincts of
historic and cultural significance’. The Futala Tank is
mentioned at serial number 132 in the Schedule of these
Regulations which is treated as Grade I heritage structure.
Page 9 of 24
In that view, the necessary sanction of the Heritage
Conservation Committee was obtained before securing the
permission for development of Futala Tank and Parking
Plaza etc. which was granted by the Heritage Committee
after obtaining a compliance report.
5.1 It is to be stated that the abovementioned
permissions and No Objection Certificates granted by the
competent authorities concerned, for the recreational facilities
and beautification project set up at the place of the Lake,
have not been challenged by the public interest litigantappellant at any stage of the proceedings.
5.1.1 The respondents, including respondent No.4 have
stated that in order to ensure the protection of ecological
balance, compensatory afforestation was carried out in
respect of the trees which were required to be removed for
executing the directions at certain places. The trees which
were removed were compensated by planting other trees at
the location given by the Municipal Corporation. It was
claimed that the Floating Musical Fountain Show resulted into
improvement of quality of water in the Futala Tank and its
aquatic life is enhanced. It was further stated that the
Viewer’s Gallery and the Parking Plaza are in the dry zone.
The Viewer’s Gallery has worked as protection against
dumping of waste and encroachment.
Page 10 of 24
5.2 Now, before proceeding further, it is warranting for
the court to conclude on the kind and nature of the
constructions in and around the Futala Tank, which are subject
matter of grievance. The work of Viewer’s Gallery has been
executed as per the approved plan and that it was shown that
the same is constructed on the Bund road adjacent to the
precinct of the Futala Tank, which does not disturb the
existing precinct. It is at a height of 4 metres above the dam
level, which is permissible under the guidelines. The Gallery
does not touch the embarkment structure. It could not be
demonstrated that the Viewer’s Galley in its existence has
any adverse ecological effect.
5.2.1 No constructions are carried out in the catchment
area of the Lake. The construction of the floating restaurant,
banquet and the platform could not be categorized as
permanent construction. It was given out that platform design
was reviewed and vetted by IIT, Mumbai.
5.2.2 What was harped in particular on behalf of the
appellant is that the Banyan Tree artificially created for
recreational purpose is put up inside the Futala Lake and that
it is a permanent structure causing serious harm to the
waterbody. It was also claimed that 7000 tonnes of concrete
stones were dumped inside the tank for constructing the
screen of the Banyan Tree.
Page 11 of 24
5.2.3 As per the factual details placed by the respondents,
the said allegation was erroneous and exaggerated, merely
based on the newspaper clipping. It was stated that since the
Banyan Tree is to be used as the screen for the 3D show, it is
accordingly erected using the Kerb stones weighing 350
tonnes in the total area placed inside the structure so that
there is no lateral movement and the wind load is countered.
5.2.4 The Banyan Tree size is 25m x 10=250 square meters
which is just 0.51% of the total area of the tank. Importantly,
the structure of Banyan Tree is not secured by any permanent
foundation. Nor it is affixed on the bed of the tank. Therefore,
the structure of banyan tree cannot be termed as permanent
structure. The working of the said Banyan Tree structure was
executed as per the design proof-checked by Visvesvaraya
National Institute of Technology, Nagpur.
5.2.5 When the Banyan Tree is not embedded on the bed of
the lake and when there is no foundational support laid for it
inside the tank and when it is removable at any time, this
Court is inclined to accept and hold that the erection of
Banyan Tree could not be regarded as a permanent structure.
The structure possesses all the characteristics of a temporary
structure on account of its very nature of built and
removability, the existence thereof cannot be viewed as
perpetual.
Page 12 of 24
5.3 Next examining the central issue as to whether the
Futala Tank classifies within the meaning and definition of
Section 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules, the Futala Tank, also known
as Telangkhedi Tank, a waterbody situated on the Western
side of Nagpur City, was constructed in the year 1799 by Shri
Gyanoji Bhosale. The lake covers, along with its catchment to
be about 200 hectares. It was not a natural water reservoir,
but constructed by the then Ruler, to cater to the irrigational
needs. Undoubtedly, the lake is a man-made lake for the city
of Nagpur.
5.3.1 When the definition of ‘wetland’ in Rule 2(1)(g) of the
2017 Rules is looked at, the Futala Lake is not classifiable
within the statutory definition. The 2017 Rules are framed by
the Parliament in exercise of powers conferred by Section 25
read with Sub-Section (1) and clause (v) of Sub-Section (2)
and Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 and Section 23 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in supersession of
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.
5.3.2 Rule 2 (1)(g) of the Rules contained the definition of
‘Wetland’ which is as under,
“ 2(1) …
(g) ‘wetland’ means an area of marsh, fen peatland, or
water; whether natural or artificial, permanent or
Page 13 of 24
temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh,
brackish or last, including areas of marine water the
depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters,
but does not include river channels, paddy fields,
human-made water bodies/tanks specifically
constructed for drinking water purposes and structures
specifically constructed for aquaculture, salt production,
recreation and irrigation purposes.”
5.3.3 It could be seen from the aforesaid definition of
‘wetland’ that the statutory concept of wetland does not
include river channels, water body and tanks which are
specifically constructed for drinking water purposes and the
structural construction is for aquaculture, salt production,
recreation and irrigation purposes. Such exclusions stand
outside the corners of the definition. Section 2(1)(i) is the
definition of “wise use of wetlands” to mean the maintenance
of the ecological character, achieved through implementation
of eco-system approach within the context of sustainable
development.
5.3.4 The historical facts given out in the reply of
respondent No.4 filed in the present proceedings, goes to
show clearly that the lake is a man-made waterbody
constructed for drinking water and for irrigation purpose. It is
Page 14 of 24
stated that as per the available record of Futala Tank at the
Nagpur Museum of Archaeological Department of Nagpur
popularly known as Ajab bungalow, ‘Originally the reservoir
was constructed to create a source of water in the Telankhedi
precinct, which was recreational garden for the bhonsale's
and site for their prestigious guest house fordignitaries. This
catchment lake was formed by dammning the Futala stream
which collects water from the slope of seminary hills and
starky hillock. Retaining wall forms the eastern edge of the
lake, and it was a broad low parapet and circular bastions.
Futala stream which is one of the important tributaries of Nag
River in the City, became significant due to holding of water
in the Futala Tank.’
5.3.5 The Futala Tank is thus an arrangement in the lower
promenade in the centre. There is a well in which water is
collected through weep holes inside the stone masonry. The
water is supplied by gravity force through pipes. It was stated
that there is a valve for operation. These aspects go to show
that the Futala Lake was made for irrigational purpose. It was
stated that the area of the Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi
Vidyapeeth which is for agricultural and research purpose falls
on the Eastern side, that is, on other side of the road.
5.4 In view of this Court, the Futala Lake is a man-made
waterbody and it does not fall within the meaning of the
Page 15 of 24
statutory definition and is not a ‘wetland’ as defined in Rule
2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. The definition excludes humanmade waterbodies and those constructed inter alia for
irrigation purposes. The High Court was justified in recording
finding in the interim order dated 05.07.2023 and confirming
the same while passing the impugned final judgment and
order.
5.5 It is to be noted that Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules which
provides for the restrictions of activity in the ‘wetland’ would
not apply stricto sensu to Futala Tank as the Lake falls outside
the statutory definition. The said Rule is extracted
hereinbelow,
“4. Restrictions of activities in wetlands.—(1) The
wetlands shall be conserved and managed in accordance
with the principle of 'wise use' as determined by the
Wetlands Authority.
(2) The following activities shall be prohibited within the
wetlands, namely,-
(i) conversion for non-wetland uses including encroachment
of any kind;
(ii) setting up of any industry and expansion of existing
industries;
(iii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of
construction and demolition waste covered under the
Page 16 of 24
Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules,
2016; hazardous substances covered under the
Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical
Rules, 1989 or the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import,
Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-organisms
Genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989 or the
Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008; electronic waste
covered under the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016;
(iv) solid waste dumping;
(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from
industries, cities, towns, villages and other human
settlements;
(vi) any construction of a permanent nature except
for boat jetties within fifty metres from the mean
high flood level observed in the past ten years
calculated from the date of commencement of these
rules; and,
(vii) poaching.” (Emphasis supplied)
5.6 It is to be noticed however, that one of the prohibited
activities in Rule 4 (2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules is construction of
permanent nature. In M.K. Balakrishnan vs. Union of India
which was Writ Petition (Civil) No.230 of 2001 by order dated
08.02.2017, this Court dealt with the subject matter of
‘wetland’ identification and directed as under,
Page 17 of 24
“We direct the application of the principles of Rule 4 of the
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to
these 2,01,503 wetlands that have been mapped by the
Union of India. The Union of India will identify and
inventorize all these 2,01,503 wetlands with the assistance
of the State Governments and will also communicate our
order to the State Governments which will also bind the
State Governments to the effect that these identified
2,01,503 wetlands are subject to the principles of Rule 4 of
the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010”
5.6.1 In the subsequent order dated 04.10.2017, the
aforesaid direction was reiterated stating that in terms of the
previous orders dated 08.02.2017, a total of 2,01,503
wetlands that have been mapped by the Union of India should
continue to remain protected on the same principle as were
formulated in Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and
Management) Rules, 2010.
5.6.2 In view of above, the High Court in its impugned
judgment correctly observed in paragraph 9,
“Notwithstanding the aforesaid position on record, we may
refer to the Office Memorandum dated 8-3-2022 issued by
the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change of
the Government of India. In the light of the order passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4-10-2017 in Writ Petition
Page 18 of 24
(Civil) No.230 of 2001 [M.K. Balakrishnan and others Versus
Union of India and others], it was clarified/reiterated by the
said Office Memorandum that the wetlands identified as per
NWIA 2011 should be protected as per Rule 4 of the Rules of
2017.”
5.6.3 The following further pertinent observations made by
the High Court in the same paragraph,
“……even if Futala Lake is not a declared wetland by the
State Wetland Authority, the restrictions imposed vide Office
Memorandum dated 8-3-2022 ought to apply to the said
Lake. It is in this backdrop that the respondents had been
directed to ensure that the spirit behind enacting the Rules
of 2017 is not violated by undertaking any construction of a
permanent nature within Futala Lake. We are inclined to
continue this direction with a view to protect and preserve
Futala Lake from any construction of permanent nature
being undertaken therein.”
5.7 It is to be appreciated that the High Court gave
certain directions including that the respondent shall ensure
that the spirit of Rule 4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules will be
respected and structure of any permanent nature within the
lake would not be undertaken. The High Court further directed
the respondents including the Municipal Corporation Nagpur
to ensure that the activities nearby the Futala Lake does not
lead to any damage to the Lake and further that the entire
Page 19 of 24
waterbed along with its recreational and beautification
structures are kept clean and properly maintained.
5.8 It is only proper that this pristine waterbody in the
city of Nagpur continues to exist with twin objectives, namely
to bring public good for the citizens of the city of Nagpur and
also contribute to maintain environment friendliness without
causing any ecological damage, both to the waterbody itself
as well as to the quality of aqua life. This Court reiterates the
directions as well as hope expressed by the High Court.
5.9 Applying the restrictions and rigours of Rule 4 of 2017
Rules and in ensuring its relevance to the waterbodies or
wetlands, even if they are not covered within the statutory
definition, there is a recognition of precautionary principle and
doctrine of public trust, which is a judicial foresight and a
salutary approach. The various directions issued by the High
Court as referred to above, in the impugned judgment, are
only an extension of such foresighted thought acted upon.
6. The judicial wisdom has evolved the doctrine of
public trust. This doctrine has the intake of Articles 48-A and
51-A (g) of the Constitution, which in its ultimate analysis
aims to preserve and conserve the natural resources like air,
water, objects of nature to be applied for public good and
collective societal interest and the natural bodies of various
kinds on the earth. The concept is that the public has a right
Page 20 of 24
to expect certain natural things including waterbodies,
wetlands and natural lands like forests to retain their natural
ingredients, and further that the idea of maintenance of their
original characteristics finds way into the law of the land.
6.1 Propounded in M.C. Mehta (supra) and several
subsequent decisions of this Court, the public trust doctrine is
a salutary principle. The Supreme Court observed in M.C.
Mehta (supra) that,
“The notion that the public has a right to expect certain
lands and natural areas to retain their natural
characteristic is finding its way into the law of the land.
The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory
known as the "Doctrine of the Public Trust". The Public
Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that
certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests
have such a great importance to the people as a whole
that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a
subject of private ownership. The said resources being a
gift of nature, they should be made freely available to
everyone irrespective of the status in life……”
(Para 23)
6.2 In the following observation, there lies a dictum that
upholding of the public trust principle is the duty of the
governmental authorities dealing with the natural resources,
“25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the
principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and
the forests have such a great importance to the people
Page 21 of 24
as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make
them a subject of private ownership. The said resources
being a gift of nature, they should be made freely
available to everyone irrespective of the status in life.
The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect
the resources for the enjoyment of the general public
rather than to permit their use for private ownership or
commercial purposes.
(Para 25)
6.2.1 It was then stated,
“Three types of restrictions on governmental
authority are often thought to be imposed by the public
trust : first, the property subject to the trust must not
only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held
available for use by the general public; second, the
property may not be sold, even for a fair cash
equivalent; and third the property must be maintained
for particular types of uses.” (Para 25)
7. The public trust doctrine need not be limited to the
natural bodies such as waterbodies, wetlands, lakes, rivers
which are nature’s gifts, but holds true also with respect to
the man-made or artificially created waterbodies as well as
the things and the objects from nature in order to promote
ecology and environment. All those man-made or artificial
bodies created from natural resources which contribute to the
environment and are eco-friendly in their existence, have to
be subject to the doctrine of public trust.
Page 22 of 24
8. The human activities which are in tune with the
nature and ecology or which are designed for creating healthy
environment have to be guided and protected by legal
measures. It calls for the responsibility not only on the part of
the citizens, but the authorities also are equally enjoined to
ensure that the doctrine of public trust in this sphere is
applied and furthered.
9. The public trust doctrine would thus extend in respect
of even man-made or artificially created natural objects,
waterbodies, lakes, wetlands, etc. which are drawn and
created from the nature or natural resources. It would in
ultimate analysis pave way to extend to ensure the availment
of right of healthy environment and ecological balance
recognized for the citizens under Article 21 of the
Constitution. At the same time promoting sustainable
development for public good is not alien to it.
10. The judgment and order of the High Court and the
directions issued therein are a balancing exercise. It is
eminently proper and legal, booking no error.
11. The present appeal is hereby dismissed.
Page 23 of 24
In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, all interlocutory
applications, as may be pending would not survive and stand
disposed of accordingly.
…………………………………..,CJI.
[ B.R. GAVAI ]
…………………………………..,J.
[ K. VINOD CHANDRAN ]
…………………………………..,J.
[ N.V. ANJARIA ]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 07, 2025.
(VK)
Page 24 of 24
