University Institute of Legal Studies

PROJECT REPORT ON

Environmental Law: Public Trust Doctrine

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Sabina Salim Disha Pathak
B. Com LL.B. (8th Sem)
197/18
Section-D
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the concerned people

who have directly or indirectly contributed to the completion of this
project. I extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Sabina Salim, faculty of UILS,
Panjab University for providing the opportunity to work on this project and
whose insight encouraged me to go beyond the scope of
this project hence broadening my learning.
 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that the work done in this file is done under my
supervision and guidance. It is further certified that the work done is
completely original and up to my level of satisfaction.

SIGNATURE
 INDEX
S.NO Particulars Page No.

1. Introduction 5

2. Meaning, History, and Objective 5-6

3. Public Trust Doctrine 7-11

• Restrictions on the State 7
• Resources protected under the 8
doctrine
• Landmark Judgments 8-11
• Conceptual Analysis 11

4. Conclusion 12

5. Bibliography/Webliography 13
 INTRODUCTION

The latter half of the twentieth century witnessed an increase in the population which also increased
the usage of the earth’s natural resources and the depletion of its resources. The main reason behind
this depletion was the rise in pollution, industrialization, wars, poverty, and many other things. But we
never questioned ourselves that is there any extent till we can use earth’s natural resources to sustain
our life? The ownership of Earth’s natural resources? And this is the reason why for many years we
have seen a conflict between those who use earth’s natural resources for private use and those who
only use them to satisfy their human need.

People have the right to question the use of natural resources and this is the reason 1500 years ago
a Roman legal scholar labeled Public Trust Doctrine. They stated that resources are either available to
everyone or no one. This doctrine questioned the ideology of the use of natural resources for private
use. This doctrine is seen as ethics and this is the reason many philosophers, and legal scholars are
debating the rights of the public over the usage of the earth’s natural resources.

In India, this doctrine evolved in the courts and it also has its significance in the constitution. There are
various landmark judgments through which this doctrine evolved. The article further explains the
Public trust doctrine and examines various dimensions of the Public trust doctrine in India.

➢ Meaning

It is a common law defined in the USA and the U. K. it has Various common properties; including
rivers, the seashore, and the air, and these resources are held by the government to protect them from
exploitation. The sovereign cannot grant these public properties to a private party if the grant would
interfere with the public interest. The public trust doctrine has been widely used in the USA and is a
widely accepted doctrine. Various governments have been made to apply this doctrine to protect
navigable and non-navigable waters, public lands, and parks, and to apply it to both public and private
lands and ecological resources. The Supreme Court of California has broadened the definition of
public trust by including ecological and aesthetic considerations. Although the public trust doctrine is
not without its fair share of criticism it is being increasingly related to sustainable development, the
precautionary principle, and biodiversity protection. The doctrine combines the guarantee of public
access to public trust resources with a requirement of public accountability in respect of decision-
making regarding such resources. So this doctrine is valuable to all countries.

➢ History and Origin of Public Trust Doctrine

The public trust Doctrine was propounded by the Roman Empire 1500 years ago. Roman King
Justinian stated a section that “the air, the water, and the sea are all common to the public and are
entitled to be used by anyone due to the law of nature”

After the fall of the Roman empire in 1215, the Magna Carta codified Justinian words. Thus, in
England, the King had ownership of the land but he had to take care of the public trust. In the United
Kingdom, it included two rights

1. Just Privatum which means ownership for private parties;

2. Just Publicum which means ownership held by the king as a trustee for the public benefit.

➢ The objective of the Public Trust Doctrine

Traditionally Public trust doctrine was only limited to protecting the rights like the right to fisheries,
hunting, boating, and navigation for anchoring, or standing. But in the present scenario, it checks the
state’s action for management of the resources and it also questions its action. It states the state is a
trustee and the state holds all the resources. The state must preserve, prevent and protect the resources
for public use. The state is expected to perform its positive duty.
 Public Trust Doctrine in India
The Public trust doctrine in India evolved through landmark judgments. The court stated that as we
follow the Common law system our constitution includes the public trust doctrine in its jurisprudence.
The court took procedural and substantive rights seriously and applied this doctrine for the protection
of the Environment. The court also referred to various articles of the Indian constitution such as Article
48A1 which made a way through Article 212 by including rightist to a clean environment under the
Right to Life and Article 393 [Directive Principles of State Policy] which states the proper distribution
of the resources.

In the Bhopal disaster case, the court linked the right to life and a clean environment. The public trust
doctrine in India restricts the government and private property rights in India. The Public Trust
doctrine didn’t exist in India as a doctrine but it came through a landmark judgment which was M.C
Mehta vs Kamalnath.

➢ Restrictions on the State

The Public Trust Doctrine Imposes three types of restriction on the government:

1. There are some resources that may not be used by the public but they should be stored by the
government for the public
2. These resources are the gift of nature and they cannot be sold by the government
3. The property must be maintained and its adaptation should not lead to private use. There are
certain limits and No individual should be allowed to cross these limits.

1
48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.—The State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
2
21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law
3
39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State: The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards
securing (a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood; (b) that the
ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the
common detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens
are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and
dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment
 ➢ Resources Protected under Public Trust Doctrine
The Public Trust Doctrine’s power comes from the idea that the natural world is so essential to human
beings that their private right over those natural resources does not play importance nor to the public
neither to the sovereign. The Public Trust Doctrine focused heavily on the public resources and how
those interests may be safeguarded, then emphasize expanded resources themselves that the Public
Trust Doctrine safeguards While Professor William Araiza summarizes criticism of the Public Trust
Doctrine as backwards-look anti-democratic vestige whose time, if it ever existed, has passed,” he also
argues that its ENS have energized activists who have used it to shore up resource protection beyond
the Doctrine traditional shores. malleable in buttressing fundamental human of Furthermore, as we
shall see below, the doctrine has been rights to a range of ecological resources India and elsewhere
from Justinian’s time until quite recently, the Public Trust Doctrine covered a narrow range of
resources. For the most part, the Public Trust Doctrine has protected that aspect of the public domain
below the low-water mark on the margin of the sea and the great lakes, the waters over those lands,
and the waters with rivers and streams of any consequence. Occasionally, the Public Trust Doctrine
has included parklands donated to the common law; explication of public trust doctrine has included
parklands donated to the public. It also protects mountains from being mined, trees, forest, soil etc.

➢ Landmark Judgments
MC Mehta v. Kamalnath 997)1 SCC 388

The public trust doctrine was first alluded to in India through this landmark case. This case is also
known as the SPAN Motel case. In this case, a PIL challenged the minister of environment Mr.
Kamalnath [respondent] who allowed SPAN Motel company to construct a hotel near the mouth of
river Beas in Himachal Pradesh and also allowed the company to change the course of the river for the
construction by blasting the river bed. The construction of the hotel was planned on land which was
taken on a 99 years lease from the government. It was allowed by the ministry as well as the gram
panchayat of that area. The supreme court held that “the public trust is more like an order for the state
to use the public property for public purposes”. The state must protect the environment, lakes, and
public heritage and it can be only abdicated in a rare case when it is inconsistent with the public trust.
The court observed that the earth’s natural resources are the gift of nature; they should be protected
and it also stated that the values and law must adhere to the environment. The court observed that the
public at large is the beneficiary of the earth’s resources like water, air, and wetlands and as the state is
the trustee the state must protect these resources and shall not give them to private ownership for the
fulfillment of its own goal.

The court cited United States law review, and experts on environmental law to protect the
environmental rights. For example, the court cited a lengthy passage from Harvard environmental law
review and the court also stated Justinian saying on public trust doctrine and also quoted Joseph sax to
justify its notion.

The court asked the company to pay compensation for the restoration of the environment of that area
under the polluter pay principle.

Th. Majra Singh v Indian Oil Corporation AIR 1999 J K 81

Chronologically, this is the second case, where the petitioner objected to the situation of a plant filling
cylinders with liquefied petroleum gas. It was held that the state supreme court can only examine
whether authorities have taken all precautions intending to determine that laws handling environment
and pollution are given guardianship and a spotlight. Though the case selected the idea of the
precautionary principle, it confirmed that the general public Trust Doctrine has become a part of the
Indian legal thought processes. Within the High Court’s opinion, the doctrines could be a part and
parcel of Article 21 of the Constitution which there will be no dispute that the State is under an
obligation to determine that forests, lakes and wildlife, and the environment are duly protected. per the
Court, the thought that the general public includes a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to
retain their natural characteristics is finding its thanks to the law of the land.

M.I Builders v Radley Shyam Sahu AIR 1999 SC 2468

The Supreme Court has applied the Public Trust Doctrine. Here, the Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika (i.e.,
Lucknow City Corporation) granted permission to a private builder to construct an
underground shopping complex which was against the municipal Act and plan of Lucknow city. The
state supreme court ordered Mahapalika to revive the park to its original position within a period of
three months from the date of the judgment and until that was done, to require adequate measures and
to supply necessary safeguards and protections to the users of the park. the explanation advanced by
Mahapalika for the development of the underground commercial complex was to ease the congestion
within the area. The state supreme court took judicial notice of the conditions prevailing at the location
and determined that the development of an underground market would further congest the world.

On appeal by the builders, the Supreme Court held that the terms of agreement showed that the clauses
of the agreement are unreasonable, unfair and atrocious. The Mahapalika, as a trustee for the right
management of the park, should be more cautious in addressing its properties. The Court added that
the land of immense value had been handed over thereto to construct an underground shopping
complex in violation of the general public trust doctrine. The upkeep of the park, due to its historical
importance and environmental necessity, was in itself a public purpose. Therefore, the development of
an underground market within the grab of decongesting the world was wholly contrary and prejudicial
to the general public purpose. By allowing the development, Mahapalika has deprived its residents,
and also others, of the standard of life to which they were entitled under the Constitution and under the
Municipal Act. Additionally, the Mahapalika violated the general public Trust Doctrine and also the
Court ordered the demolition of the unauthorized shopping complex.

State of West Bengal V. Kesoram Industries (2004) 10 SCC 201

This Doctrine was once again followed in this case wherein it was observed that deep underground
water belongs to the State in the sense that the Doctrine of Public Trust extends thereto. H2O is taken
into account as part of national wealth and it belongs to the whole society. Water could be a nectar
sustaining life on earth and thus the State incorporates a duty to guard H2O against excessive
exploitation. The Court held that natural resources which include lakes are held by the State as a
trustee of the general public, and might be disposed of only in a very manner that’s per the character.
The discussions on the Doctrine of trust and various case laws makes it evident that the state isn’t the
owner of the natural resources within the country but a trustee who holds a fiduciary relationship with
the people. By accepting this task, the government is predicted to be loyal to the interests of its citizens
and to discharge its duty with the interest of the citizens deep down and involve them in decision-
making processes concerning the management of natural resources within the count

➢ Conceptual Analysis
The Public Trust Doctrine may provide the means for increasing the effectiveness of environmental
impact assessment laws. Thus, under this doctrine, the State incorporates a duty as a trustee under Art
48A to guard and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country While
applying Art 21 (right to life), the state is obliged to require an account of Art 48A, a Directive
Principle of State Policy. The state’s trusteeship duties are expanded to incorporate a right to a healthy
environment. It is interesting to note that within the Kamal Nath case the Supreme Court held that
whether or not there’s a separate and a selected law to cater to the difficulty before the Court, it’s
going to still apply the trust doctrine. If there’s no suitable legislation to preserve the natural resources,
the general public authorities should cash in on this doctrine additionally to the actual fact that there
was a branch of municipal law. Also, the Supreme Court in M.I. builders, however, stated that the trust
doctrine has grown from Article 21 of the constitution. By attaching this doctrine to the elemental right
to life, the Supreme Court appears to be willing to diversify the appliance of this doctrine. It seems
likely that the court would give precedence to the Right to Life when the general public trust doctrine,
as part of the right to a secure and healthy environment, is challenged by the other fundamental rights
Moreover, by ordering the Mahapalika to revive the park to its original beauty, the Supreme Court
redefined the duties of a trustee to its beneficiaries the users of the park. In effect, it aligned the local
authorities’ duty as a trustee with the concept of intragenerational and intergenerational
equity. Further, the case came before the court as a review and not as a challenge against the choice of
the government from a beneficiary. As this doctrine acts as a check upon administrative action by
providing a mechanism for judicial or resource allocation decisions. Therefore, the trust doctrine could
function as a further tool for environmental protection, particularly where administrative discretion has
been abused.
 CONCLUSION

The word ‘Environment’ has too many meanings and it is a difficult job to define it. Even the
environmentalists who work in this direction are not able to define it. For many centuries we have
changed the environment according to us and it is proven that it is malleable. But there is a limit and we
have seen the changes in the environment like pollution, changes in vegetation and food chain, climate
change, and vanishing wetlands. We, humans, have destroyed the environment.

Not surprisingly the Apex Court of India took a dynamic step to invoke the public trust Doctrine. It was
a necessary legal approach toward protecting the resources and environment. This doctrine shows
consistency with the current environmental problems. The public trust doctrine enforces a legal right for
the general public and a positive obligation for the state to perform its duty. Our constitution reflects the
concern for the environment and it also guarantees us the right to a clean environment.

The Public trust doctrine is a great way to ensure the protection of the environment as it checks the
management of the state and ensures good management of natural resources. It is a tool to address the
increasing degradation of the environment. The public trust doctrine is an effective legal framework to
solve the environmental conflicts for which India does not have proper laws and legislation. By invoking
the public trust doctrine, we can promote the protection of the earth and its resources.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY/WEBLIOGRAPHY

1. Public Trust Doctrine in India - iPleaders

2. Public Trust Doctrine (legalserviceindia.com)
3. NGT | Under Public Trust Doctrine, State has to act as trustee of water bodies; States/UTs
directed to designate nodal agency for restoration of water bodies | SCC Blog (scconline.com)
4. Public Trust Doctrine Archives | SCC Blog (scconline.com)