Public trust doctrine and natural resource management
🔍 What is the Public Trust Doctrine?
âś… Definition:
The Public Trust Doctrine is a legal principle that holds certain natural resources — such as air, water, forests, wildlife, and coastal lands — in trust by the state for public use. The doctrine imposes a fiduciary duty on the government to protect and manage these resources for the benefit of current and future generations.
âś… Core Principles:
Resources belong to the people and cannot be privatized arbitrarily.
The State acts as a trustee, not as an owner.
The State has a duty to protect the environment and public access to natural resources.
Private exploitation of essential resources is subject to strict scrutiny and regulation.
⚖️ Constitutional and Legal Basis in India
Article 21: Right to life includes the right to a healthy environment.
Article 48A: Directive Principle — State shall protect and improve the environment.
Article 51A(g): Fundamental Duty — Every citizen must protect the environment.
Environmental Protection Act, 1986, and other environmental laws support the application of the doctrine.
đź“š Landmark Case Laws on Public Trust Doctrine
1. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
Facts:
A private company was allowed to divert a river's flow to protect a resort owned by a relative of a former Minister.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the State cannot transfer public resources for private use if it harms the environment. The river and its banks are part of the national wealth held in public trust.
Significance:
This case firmly introduced the Public Trust Doctrine into Indian environmental jurisprudence and established that natural resources cannot be privatized if it affects ecological balance.
2. M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) 6 SCC 464
Facts:
A historic public park was illegally leased for building an underground shopping complex.
Held:
The Court quashed the lease and directed the restoration of the park. It said that public spaces and natural assets cannot be handed over for private commercial use in violation of public trust.
Significance:
Emphasized urban green spaces as public assets protected under the Public Trust Doctrine.
3. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2G Spectrum Case) (2012) 3 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenged the arbitrary allocation of 2G telecom spectrum licenses by the government.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that natural resources like spectrum are public property, and any allocation must be transparent and fair. The “public trust” over natural resources implies that they must be used for public good, not private enrichment.
Significance:
Extended the Public Trust Doctrine beyond physical resources to invisible or intangible assets like airwaves/spectrum.
4. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins (2009) 3 SCC 571
Facts:
A hotel blocked access to a beach, claiming private property rights.
Held:
The Court held that beaches are public trust properties, and access to them must not be restricted. The hotel was directed to remove obstructions.
Significance:
Established that coastal areas are public goods, and public access must be preserved.
5. Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC 549
Facts:
A water body was being filled to develop housing.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated that lakes and wetlands are part of ecological heritage and must be protected under the public trust doctrine.
Significance:
Strengthened protection of urban wetlands and water bodies from encroachment.
6. Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 6 SCC 543
Facts:
A village pond was proposed to be used for residential development.
Held:
The Court held that water bodies must be preserved, and even if they seem unused, they are crucial for groundwater recharge and ecological balance.
Significance:
Affirmed that local water bodies fall under public trust and must not be converted or sold.
7. State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries (2004) 10 SCC 201
Facts:
Dispute over taxing mineral-rich lands.
Held:
The Court explained that minerals under the land are held in trust by the state for its people. The state is the guardian, not the owner.
Significance:
Reinforced the fiduciary role of the State in managing sub-surface natural resources.
🧠Key Takeaways from the Case Law
| Principle | Judicial Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Natural resources belong to the public | State cannot privatize or alienate irresponsibly |
| State as trustee | Government is a trustee, not an owner |
| Use for public good | Allocation must be transparent and fair |
| Environmental balance | Ecosystem services like rivers, lakes, forests must be protected |
| Applies to tangible and intangible assets | Doctrine applies to forests, rivers, spectrum, beaches, etc. |
đź“Ś Conclusion
The Public Trust Doctrine has evolved into a powerful legal tool for protecting India’s natural and ecological resources. The courts have consistently interpreted this doctrine to:
Prevent misuse or arbitrary allocation of public resources.
Enforce accountability on the government.
Ensure environmental sustainability and inter-generational equity.
It serves as the legal foundation for sustainable natural resource management in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments