The Doctrine of Public Trust and Environmental Protection in India

The doctrine of public trust has evolved over the years to emerge as a cardinal principle for the judiciary to determine the validity of governmental action that interferes with the use by the general public of certain natural resources. The application of the doctrine has resulted in the imposition of a check upon governmental authorities who seek to divest State control over such natural resources in favour of private interests. Though of ancient origin and of considerable vintage in the United States, it is only recently that the doctrine has been applied in India.

The antiquity of the doctrine of public trust:

The roots in history of the doctrine are traced to the Roman emperor, Justinian. In Book II of his Institutes, Justinian proclaims :

By the law of nature these things are common to mankind---the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore ...

The doctrine of public trust in the United States

The doctrine of public trust, in its modern form, is owed to the Courts of the United States. The case of Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Illinois [ ] has been identified as "the Lodestar in American Public Trust Law" . In that case, the legislature granted lands underlying Lake Michigan to a private company. A few years later, the legislature had second thoughts about the grant and repealed it. In an action brought by the state to have the original grant declared invalid, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that the title to the lands given in grant were different in character from that which the state holds in lands ...state that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have the liberty of fishing therein freed from the obstruction or interferences of private parties. Though the Court did not prohibit the disposition of trust lands to private parties, it stated that the state cannot divest itself of authority to govern the whole of an area in which it has responsibility to exercise its police power; to grant the entire waterfront of a major city (Chicago) to a private company is, in effect, to abdicate legislative authority over navigation. Subsequently, the superior Courts of some State like Massachusetts have modified the doctrine to suit the peculiar status and uses of public resources prevalent in those states.

The doctrine in India - M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath And Others

(1997)1 SCC 388

The Supreme Court of India applied the doctrine for the in the above case. The case involved encroachment of forest land and an attempt to change the course of the River Beas to facilitate the construction of a motel by a company reportedly having direct links with the family of Kamal Nath, former Minister of Environment and Forests.

The Supreme Court took notice of a news item regarding the above developments and proceeded to quash the prior approval granted by the central government for leasing out forest land and also the lease deed between the government of Himachal Pradesh and the company. The Court also directed the Government of Himachal Pradesh to takeover the entire area and restore it to its natural-original state. The company was directed to remove the construction made in the river bed and on the banks of the river, to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area and to prohibit from discharging untreated effluents into the river. While directing the company to construct a boundary wall separating the building from the river basin, the Court made it clear that the river bank and the river basin were to be left open for public use. The Court pronounced in categorical terms :

"The public trust doctrine, as discussed by us in this judgement is a part of the law of the land."

The public trust doctrine therefore furnishes a theoretical framework to the Courts in deciding those cases relating to the environment where a major community resource has been directed towards purposes and uses other than those for common enjoyment and benefit.

S.A. Karthik