The Supreme Court ruled that 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.
The three judges bench of the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran And Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that 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.
Background
The case of the appellant before the High Court and further emphasised before the supreme 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.
Arguments
The counsel for the Appellant 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 present case the prohibition contained in Rule 4(1)(iv) would operate.
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.
It was further 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 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.
The respondents, including respondent No.4 submitted 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.
Court Observation
The court observed that 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.
The bench further observed that 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.
The bench added that it could be seen from the 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.
The bench said that 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.
In view of the Court, the Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody and it does not fall within the meaning of the 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.
The court 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 bench stated that 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 in the judgment, are only an extension of such foresighted thought acted upon.
“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 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”, the court stated.
The bench dismissed the appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Swacch Association, Nagpur V/S The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No.1420 OF 2024
Date of Judgment: 07/10/2025
