Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by an environmental organisation challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to halt the ongoing beautification and recreational projects at Futala Lake, Nagpur, holding that the lake is a man-made waterbody and does not qualify as a ‘wetland’ under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
The Court, while upholding the High Court’s directions, clarified that the “doctrine of public trust extends even to man-made or artificial lakes”, and such water bodies must be preserved to balance environmental protection with public benefit.
A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria held:
“The public trust doctrine would thus extend to even man-made or artificially created natural objects and waterbodies… promoting sustainable development for public good is not alien to it.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the construction of the viewer’s gallery, floating restaurant, and musical fountain around Futala Lake complied with environmental norms and permissions, and did not violate the 2017 Rules.
Facts
The appellant, a registered environmental association, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Bombay High Court seeking demolition of several recreational structures constructed around Futala Lake, a historic waterbody in Nagpur city. The petitioner alleged that the project—comprising a musical fountain inside the lake, a nine-storey parking plaza, a floating restaurant, and an artificial banyan tree used as a multimedia screen—was illegal and environmentally damaging.
The association contended that Futala Lake was a notified wetland under the National Wetland Atlas and therefore protected under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. It alleged violation of Rule 4(2)(vi), which prohibits construction of any permanent nature within 50 metres of a wetland.
The High Court of Bombay, however, found that Futala Lake was man-made, originally constructed in 1799 by the Bhonsale rulers for irrigation and drinking water, and thus excluded from the statutory definition of “wetland.” The Court declined to halt the project but directed authorities to ensure that no permanent construction or ecological harm occurs within the lake’s precincts.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, asserting that the High Court erred in excluding the lake from wetland protection and failed to appreciate the ecological threat posed by the project.
Issues
- Whether Futala Lake qualifies as a wetland under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules, thereby attracting statutory restrictions.
- Whether the construction of the viewer’s gallery, floating restaurant, and banyan tree structure amounted to illegal permanent constructions within the meaning of Rule 4(2)(vi).
- Whether the public trust doctrine and precautionary principle were violated by permitting commercial and recreational activities in the lake area.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that Futala Lake was identified as a wetland in the National Wetland Inventory conducted by the Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad, and was among the 2,01,503 wetlands recognized by the Union Government pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India (2017).
It contended that constructing permanent structures like the viewer’s gallery and the artificial banyan tree violated Rule 4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules, which prohibits such activities in or near wetlands.
The petitioner relied on M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388, asserting that the State holds natural resources in trust for the public and cannot alienate them for commercial use. The beautification projects, it was argued, amounted to “commercial exploitation” of a public waterbody, contrary to the doctrine of public trust and Articles 21, 48-A, and 51-A(g) of the Constitution.
The petitioner maintained that the fountain and artificial tree caused ecological imbalance by obstructing aquatic life, increasing concrete deposition, and altering the lake’s character. It urged the Court to order demolition of all such structures and restoration of the lake’s natural state.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents — including the State of Maharashtra, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, and Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation — submitted that the projects were sanctioned by all competent authorities, including the Heritage Conservation Committee, Public Works Department, Fisheries Department, and Environmental Management Board.
They clarified that Futala Lake was not a natural wetland, but a historic man-made reservoir created for irrigation and drinking water, falling outside the scope of Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules.
The artificial banyan tree, they explained, was a temporary multimedia installation, resting on kerb stones without any permanent foundation, covering less than 0.51% of the lake’s total area, and therefore not a permanent structure.
Further, the floating restaurant and musical fountain improved the lake’s water quality and prevented encroachments and waste dumping. The respondents asserted that afforestation and ecological compensation measures were undertaken, and the project promoted eco-tourism in line with sustainable development principles.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands Rules, which defines a wetland but expressly excludes man-made tanks constructed for drinking water, irrigation, or recreation. Based on historical and administrative records, Futala Lake was found to be a constructed reservoir, built by rulers for irrigation and domestic use, thereby excluded from the statutory definition.
The Court also referred to Rule 4(2)(vi), which prohibits permanent construction within wetlands, and held that this restriction cannot apply stricto sensu to a structure that does not qualify as a wetland.
However, the Court emphasized the broader constitutional duty under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) to protect all waterbodies, natural or artificial, stating that “public trust obligations extend beyond statutory wetlands.”
Thus, even though Futala Lake is excluded from the 2017 Rules, its ecological and heritage character must still be safeguarded under the public trust doctrine.
Precedent Analysis
- M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India (2017) — The Court had directed that the 2,01,503 wetlands identified nationwide must be protected under the principles of Rule 4 of the 2010 Wetlands Rules. The present Bench applied this reasoning to observe that even non-notified waterbodies deserve protection through similar ecological caution.
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) — The Court reaffirmed that the State is a trustee of natural resources, and must ensure they are preserved for public use and not commercial exploitation
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) — Emphasized the precautionary principle and polluter pays doctrine, which informed the Court’s view that ecological preservation must accompany development projects.
Through these precedents, the Court underscored a balanced interpretation of environmental jurisprudence — protecting nature while enabling sustainable public benefit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench held that Futala Lake does not meet the definition of a wetland, as it was an artificial reservoir created for irrigation and recreation. Therefore, Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules does not apply in its entirety, though its spirit should guide authorities.
The Court emphasized that the viewer’s gallery, floating restaurant, and artificial banyan tree were temporary and removable structures, vetted by IIT Mumbai and VNIT Nagpur. They did not cause permanent alteration or ecological harm to the lake.
Importantly, the Court expanded the public trust doctrine, holding that its scope is not confined to natural resources but extends to artificial waterbodies that serve ecological and community purposes.
“The public trust doctrine need not be limited to natural bodies such as waterbodies, lakes, rivers, but holds true also with respect to man-made or artificially created waterbodies which contribute to the environment.”
The Court thus upheld the High Court’s directions mandating strict ecological supervision, regular maintenance, and prohibition of permanent construction, reaffirming a balanced approach between development and conservation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that Futala Lake is not a statutory wetland, but reiterating that it must remain protected under the public trust and precautionary principles.
“It is only proper that this pristine waterbody continues to exist with twin objectives — to bring public good for the citizens of Nagpur and also to maintain environment friendliness without causing any ecological damage.”
The Court endorsed the High Court’s directions ensuring environmental preservation, declaring them a “balancing exercise, eminently proper and legal.”
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Implications
This judgment represents a progressive expansion of environmental jurisprudence in India. It clarifies that:
- Even man-made or artificial waterbodies fall within the ambit of the public trust doctrine.
- Authorities must ensure sustainable coexistence of urban development and environmental conservation.
- The Court has reaffirmed that public good and ecological integrity must move together, emphasizing responsibility on both citizens and the State under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g).
This decision will guide future urban environmental cases involving eco-tourism, heritage lakes, and recreational redevelopment projects.
FAQs
1. Does the Wetlands Rules, 2017 apply to man-made lakes?
No. Man-made or artificial tanks constructed for irrigation, drinking water, or recreation are expressly excluded from the definition of “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g).
2. What is the public trust doctrine in environmental law?
It is a legal principle that the State holds natural resources in trust for public use and must preserve them for collective benefit rather than private or commercial exploitation.
3. What directions did the Supreme Court issue for Futala Lake?
The Court directed that no permanent structures be built within the lake area and that authorities ensure cleanliness, maintenance, and ecological preservation.
