Public Trust Doctrine Applies Even to Man-Made Lakes, But Approved Beautification Projects Can Coexist with Ecology": Supreme Court in Futala Lake Case

"Futala Lake May Not Be a Wetland Under Law, But It Must Be Protected in Spirit" –  In a judgment that weaves together constitutional values, environmental jurisprudence, and urban governance, the Supreme Court of India on October 7, 2025, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the construction and recreational activities near Futala Lake, Nagpur. Deciding the case of Swacch Association, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Court held that Futala Lake, being a man-made waterbody constructed in 1799 for irrigation and drinking water purposes, is excluded from the statutory definition of "wetland" under Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.

Yet, the Court invoked the public trust doctrine and constitutional environmental obligations under Articles 21, 48-A, and 51A(g) to affirm that even man-made waterbodies must be preserved against ecological damage, while also recognising the legitimacy of development projects that are sanctioned and environmentally compliant.

Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for the full Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and himself, emphasised that "judicial foresight must not be used to stall lawful development but to strengthen environmental responsibility." The appeal was ultimately dismissed, upholding the Bombay High Court’s well-balanced judgment.

“Futala Lake is Not a Statutory Wetland; It Was Built for Irrigation and Drinking – Hence Rule 4 Restrictions Do Not Apply”: Supreme Court Interprets Wetland Rules Strictly

The central legal question was whether Futala Lake qualified as a ‘wetland’ under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules, thereby attracting the restrictions in Rule 4, particularly the prohibition on permanent construction within 50 metres of the high flood level.

The Court categorically ruled:

“The Futala Tank is a man-made waterbody and it does not fall within the meaning of the statutory definition and is not a ‘wetland’ as defined in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules.”

It further clarified that although the lake appeared in the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA), its inclusion did not override the statutory exclusion of man-made structures created for irrigation and drinking purposes.

The judgment delved into the legislative intent behind the Wetlands Rules, holding that “human-made tanks specifically constructed for drinking water and irrigation purposes fall outside the definition and hence outside the direct applicability of Rule 4.”

“When Projects Have Sanctions and No Proven Ecological Harm, Courts Must Not Interfere in Urban Beautification”: Supreme Court Reaffirms Judicial Restraint in Environmental PILs

The petitioners had sought demolition of the Viewer’s Gallery, Floating Restaurant, Multimedia Banyan Tree installation, and the Parking Plaza, claiming that these violated environmental norms, defiled the lakebed, and breached public trust.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court noted that every construction was carried out with approvals from competent authorities including the Municipal Corporation, Heritage Committee, PWD, Fisheries, and Forest Departments. The designs were vetted by IIT Mumbai and VNIT Nagpur, and no credible evidence of ecological degradation was placed on record.

The Court observed: “It could not be demonstrated that the Viewer’s Gallery in its existence has any adverse ecological effect.”

Regarding the artificial Banyan Tree, it held: “The structure is not secured by any permanent foundation. Nor is it affixed on the bed of the tank. It is removable and hence cannot be regarded as permanent.”

Thus, the Court reaffirmed that developmental activities sanctioned by law and conscious of ecological balance do not offend constitutional or environmental norms.

“Public Trust Doctrine is Not Limited to Natural Lakes – It Applies Equally to Man-Made Waterbodies that Serve Ecological Functions”: Supreme Court Expands Scope of Environmental Jurisprudence

Perhaps the most vital jurisprudential contribution of this decision lies in the Court’s powerful reaffirmation and extension of the public trust doctrine. The Court declared that:

“The public trust doctrine need not be limited to the natural bodies… but holds true also with respect to man-made or artificially created waterbodies.”

Building on M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), the Court held that all environmental assets — natural or constructed — which support ecology and public health fall within the domain of public trust, and must be preserved both by citizens and the State.

In words that will guide future environmental litigation, the Court said: “The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes.”

Yet, the Court made a clear distinction between exploitation and enhancement. It held that eco-conscious beautification projects, if approved, transparent, and non-invasive, may actually contribute to public good and ecological balance.

“Even if Not a Declared Wetland, Futala Must Be Protected in Spirit — Sustainable Development and Ecological Conservation Are Not Antagonists”: Supreme Court Upholds Balanced Approach of Hih Court

Recognising that Futala Lake was listed in the NWIA 2011, the Court relied on its own orders in M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India to hold that the spirit of Rule 4 of the Wetlands Rules should still guide development, even if not binding strictly.

It endorsed the Bombay High Court’s approach: “Even if Futala Lake is not a declared wetland… the restrictions imposed vide Office Memorandum dated 8.3.2022 ought to apply to the said Lake.”

The Supreme Court upheld this “judicial foresight”, noting: “There is a recognition of the precautionary principle and doctrine of public trust… The various directions issued by the High Court are only an extension of such foresighted thought acted upon.”

In conclusion, the Court called for a harmony between ecology and civic amenities, stating that “this pristine waterbody in the city of Nagpur continues to exist with twin objectives: public good for the citizens and maintaining environment friendliness.”

Court Dismisses Appeal But Preserves Environmental Ethos

Upholding the Bombay High Court's judgment and its restrained yet vigilant directions, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The PIL, in the Court’s view, failed to establish any actual or probable ecological harm, and instead targeted lawful and planned development, which was not per se opposed to the environment.

The Court remarked: “The judgment and order of the High Court and the directions issued therein are a balancing exercise. It is eminently proper and legal, booking no error.”

The decision thus strikes a mature note in Indian environmental law, stressing that protecting nature does not mean opposing all development — it means ensuring that development is aligned with ecological consciousness and legal legitimacy.

Date of Decision: October 07, 2025