Public Trust Doctrine Encompasses Man-Made Waterbodies; Their Protection Integral To Right To Healthy Environment: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was hearing an appeal challenging the judgment of the Bombay High Court that had declined to order the removal of certain installations and recreational structures built around Futala Lake in Nagpur City, while issuing directions to ensure ecological protection and continued maintenance.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria, while upholding the Bombay High Court’s findings, remarked: “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.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the appellant, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents.

Background

The appellant, an association engaged in green practices for promoting a healthy environment, had filed a public interest litigation alleging that certain constructions, such as a musical fountain installed within the lake, a floating banquet stage, a viewing gallery, and a parking plaza, violated environmental norms and infringed the public trust doctrine.

It was contended that the lake was a “wetland” within the meaning of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and that permanent structures within or around it were impermissible.

The respondents, including municipal and development authorities, however, submitted that the lake was a man-made waterbody created for irrigation and drinking water purposes and therefore excluded from the statutory definition of “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules.

The respondents maintained that all works were undertaken only after obtaining the required permissions, environmental clearances, and heritage approvals.

The Bombay High Court, after considering the record, had refused to order demolition but directed that no permanent constructions be made within the lake precincts and that its ecological balance be preserved.

Aggrieved by the order, the association approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework, including the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. It noted that the Futala Lake, also known as Telangkhedi Tank, was constructed in 1799 by the then ruler to meet the irrigation and drinking water needs of the city and therefore fell outside the statutory definition of a “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g).

The Apex Court also held that Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules, which prohibits permanent construction and other harmful activities in wetlands, would not apply “stricto sensu” to man-made lakes, though the spirit of the rule must be respected to prevent ecological harm. The Bench agreed with the Bombay High Court’s approach, which had relied on the precautionary principle and directed authorities to prevent the construction of a permanent nature even in such man-made waterbodies.

Emphasising the constitutional foundation of the public trust doctrine, the Apex Court traced its origin to M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and reiterated that natural resources, being gifts of nature, are held by the State in trust for public use. While making these observations, the Bench remarked that “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 Bench, while expanding the ambit of the doctrine, held that it extends beyond natural formations to include man-made or artificial ecosystems, stating that “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”

The Supreme Court, while appreciating the Bombay High Court’s directions to ensure both public good and environmental preservation, concluded that “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.”

Conclusion

Upholding the Bombay High Court’s order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with the directions of the High Court remaining in force. All pending applications were disposed of.

Cause Title: Swacch Association Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1199)

Appearances

Appellant: Sr. Adv. Gopal Sankaranarayanan with Advocates Anindita Mitra, AOR, and Satyajit Sarna

Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, ASG Aishwarya Bhati, Sr. Advs. Shekhar Naphade, S.K. Mishra, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Rohit Anil Rathi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul

Click here to read/download Judgment