This article is written by Unnati V. Chhangani, a Fourth Year Law Student, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ecological Preservation needs to be practical and not Symbolic.
The Supreme Court observed that the public trust doctrine and environmental protections, though constitutionally mandated, must be applied with a contextual, cogent views that balances ecological interests with existing public utility and ground realities.
The division bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant And Justice N. Kotiswar Singh further Observed that Sustainable development and public trust must be interpreted together for a long-term benefit.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) redeveloped a 100-year-old defunct lake (Khajuria Talao ) into a public park, claiming the site had become a garbage dump. Despite the land belonging to the State, MCGM proceeded with beautification, later receiving post-facto approval. A PIL in 2012 sought demolition of the park and restoration of the lake. The Bombay High Court allowed the PIL. Being aggrieved MCGM preferred the appeal before the Apex court.
The counsel for the Appellants contested that the Subject Property was already reserved as Recreation Ground or ‘R.G.’ in the sanctioned Development Plan of 1991. Moreover, this reservation was made following due statutory process, including inviting public objections and suggestions through the Gazette Notification, and no objections were ever raised by any party, including the respondent.
The counsel also shed some light over the condition of lake prior to the beautification project i.e. was merely used as a garbage dumping ground and nothing more beneficial.
The Counsel for the respondents submitted that the beautification project represented nothing short of ecological destruction, resulting in the obliteration of a century-old lake that supported various aquatic species and attracted diverse birdlife to its surrounding mangroves.
The Counsel further submitted that the principles of environmental protection and the public trust doctrine mandated the restoration of the natural water body, as rightly held by the High Court.
Upon perusal of the Judgement, the Apex court noted that the High Court’s reasoning rested primarily on the public trust doctrine, whereby it held that the State could not permit the destruction of natural water bodies under any circumstances. Furthermore, invoking Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, the High Court concluded that the preservation of water bodies constitutes an absolute constitutional mandate that invariably supersedes developmental considerations or temporal factors.
The division bench reckoned that, “albeit the High Court’s views were well-intentioned and prima facie the correct interpretation of settled notions such as the public trust doctrine, they nonetheless warrant reconsideration through the prism of practical realities and evolved ground conditions.”.
The bench stated that the public trust doctrine requires the government to protect natural resources for public and ecological benefit, but its application must consider specific facts and current public needs. It must strike an equilibrium between sustainable development and evolving welfare goals.
It was also observed by the bench that, the current park is vibrant, green, and beneficial, used by all age groups, with mature trees and biodiversity and knocking down of park would,
Cut down mature trees,
Waste public funds already spent.
The bench further added that the lake restoration does not guarantee high and proper maintenance, with the distinct possibility of such stagnant water body becoming health hazards for the local populace, particularly during the monsoon seasons when such properties are prone to becoming breeding grounds for disease-carrying vectors. Hence, restoring the lake would cause more ecological harm than good.
The Apex court also held that, grievances must be raised promptly, not after substantial changes have taken root. Here, public funds were spent, and the park became a vital community space. Undoing such development would serve no public purpose, as time, usage, and community reliance have legitimized the transformation. Courts must respect settled realities where delay creates irreversible change.
The Court found that reinstating the site now would be unfeasible due to the changed ecological, social, and urban realities. The Court emphasized the need for a pragmatic approach for ecological preservation with present-day urban sustainability and public welfare.
Case Details
Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. Versus Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (C) No(s). 29048 / 2018
Date: 30th May, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Dhruv Mehta, Senior Counsel
Counsel For Respondent: Kunal Cheema
