The Public Trust Doctrine: M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

In one line

The judgment that made the State a trustee of natural resources rather than their owner, and quashed a lease because of it.

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, AIRONLINE 1996 SC 711; (1997) 1 SCC 388, decided 13 December 1996 by Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad JJ.

Facts. A motel owned by the family of a former Minister for Environment and Forests had encroached on forest land on the bank of the river Beas at Kullu, and had used bulldozers and earth-movers to divert the course of the river to protect its lawns. The Court took cognizance of a newspaper report of it.

Held. The Court held that our legal system, based on English common law, includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence; that the State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment; that the public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile lands; that the State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources, and that these resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. It quashed the prior approval given by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests on 24 November 1993 and the lease deed of 11 April 1994, directed the Himachal Pradesh Government to take the area over and restore it to its original natural condition, required the motel to pay compensation by way of the cost of restitution of the environment and ecology of the area, the pollution caused by its constructions in the river bed and on the banks of the Beas having to be removed and reversed, and directed NEERI to assess that cost.

Why it matters. It is the judgment in which the doctrine entered Indian law, and its first direction is in terms: the public trust doctrine, as discussed in this judgment, is a part of the law of the land.

What the doctrine says

The premise, in the Court's own words: certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership; being a gift of nature they should be freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life; and 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.

The three restrictions, which the Court took from Professor Joseph Sax and which are the most quotable part of the judgment. 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. Third, the property must be maintained in particular types of uses.