Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a PIL against recreational and beautification works at Futala Lake, Nagpur, holding that the lake, a man-made waterbody built for irrigation, is not a 'wetland' under Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, that the impugned structures were sanctioned and not permanent constructions, and that the High Court's directions applying the spirit of Rule 4 were a proper application of the public trust doctrine, which extends to man-made waterbodies.
Issues
- Whether Futala Lake, a man-made tank, is a 'wetland' within Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, so as to attract the prohibitions in Rule 4.
- Whether the viewer's gallery, floating platforms and the artificial banyan tree erected in and around the lake were constructions of a permanent nature.
- Whether the public trust doctrine applies to man-made waterbodies, and whether the High Court's directions to protect the lake were proper.
Provisions considered
- Rule 2(1)(g), Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017The definition of 'wetland' expressly excludes river channels, paddy fields, human-made waterbodies or tanks specifically constructed for drinking water and structures constructed for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation. As Futala Lake was a man-made tank built around 1799 for irrigation and water supply, it fell within the exclusion and was not a wetland under the Rules. (¶¶ 5.3, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.4)
- Rule 4, including Rule 4(2)(vi), Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017Rule 4 lists activities prohibited within wetlands, including permanent construction (except boat jetties) within fifty metres of the mean high flood level. It did not apply stricto sensu to the lake, but because the lake is listed in the National Wetland Inventory, which earlier Supreme Court orders and a 2022 Office Memorandum protect on Rule 4 principles, the High Court rightly directed that the spirit of Rule 4(2)(vi) be respected and no permanent structure be raised in the lake. (¶¶ 5.5, 5.6, 5.6.1, 5.6.2, 5.6.3, 5.7, 5.9)
- Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g), Constitution of IndiaThe public trust doctrine was traced to the State's duty to protect the environment and the citizen's duty to protect lakes and rivers, and was linked to the right to a healthy environment and ecological balance under Article 21. (¶¶ 6, 9)
Held
- Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody constructed for irrigation and water supply. It falls within the exclusions in the definition of 'wetland' in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules and is therefore not a wetland under the Rules; the High Court's finding to that effect was upheld. (¶¶ 5.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.4)
- The viewer's gallery, parking plaza, floating stage and banquet and multimedia installations were executed under sanctions and no-objection certificates from the competent authorities, including the Heritage Conservation Committee, none of which the petitioner had challenged at any stage. (¶¶ 5, 5.1)
- A structure that is not embedded in the bed of the lake, has no foundation inside the tank and can be removed at any time, such as the artificial banyan tree used as a screen for the multimedia show, is temporary and not a construction of a permanent nature; the floating restaurant, banquet and platform were likewise not permanent constructions, and the viewer's gallery was not shown to have any adverse ecological effect. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.4, 5.2.5)
- Applying the restrictions of Rule 4 to waterbodies listed in the National Wetland Inventory even when they fall outside the statutory definition reflects the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine, and the High Court's directions that no permanent structure be raised in the lake and that the lake and its surroundings be kept clean and undamaged were affirmed. (¶¶ 5.6.2, 5.6.3, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9)
- The public trust doctrine is not confined to natural waterbodies; it extends to man-made or artificially created waterbodies, lakes and wetlands drawn from natural resources that contribute to the environment, and both citizens and authorities must apply it. Promoting sustainable development for public good is consistent with the doctrine. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- The High Court's judgment, which declined the prayers for demolition but issued protective directions, was a proper balancing exercise calling for no interference. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's judgment and its protective directions affirmed; pending applications disposed of.