Environmental Law

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

(1997) 1 SCC 388

Facts

Span Motels operated a resort on the bank of the River Beas in Himachal Pradesh.
Land adjoining the river had been leased or placed under the motel’s control.
To protect and improve the resort, heavy machinery and embankments were used to alter the river’s natural flow.
Part of the riverbed and surrounding forest land was affected.
The intervention was alleged to have:
diverted the current;
encroached upon public land;
disturbed the river’s natural course;
increased ecological risk.
The case raised questions about the Government’s authority to transfer or permit private control over ecologically important river land.

Whether the State could permit private commercial use of riverbank and riverbed resources.
Whether the motel was liable for altering the natural course of the river.
Whether the public trust doctrine forms part of Indian law.

Under the public trust doctrine, the State holds certain natural resources as trustee for the public.
These include:
rivers;
forests;
air;
seashores;
ecologically sensitive land.
The State cannot ordinarily:
transfer such resources for purely private gain;
permit their substantial impairment;
abandon its duty to preserve public access and ecological integrity.
A polluter or encroacher may be required to restore the environment and compensate for damage.

The Court held that the River Beas was not an ordinary parcel of State property.
The Government possessed legal control, but that control was fiduciary.
It had to be exercised for:
public use;
environmental protection;
future generations.
Allowing the motel to reshape the river for private convenience was inconsistent with that trusteeship.
The resort’s commercial benefit did not justify:
diverting flowing water;
occupying riverbed;
altering the natural ecosystem.
The Court adopted the public trust doctrine because ordinary property law did not fully describe the State’s obligation.
The Government could not rely simply on title or lease-making power.
A trustee must preserve the subject of the trust.
The motel was also directly responsible.
Its use of machinery and barriers amounted to an intervention in the natural river system.
Environmental restoration therefore required more than cancelling the lease.
The damaged area had to be returned as far as possible to its original condition.
The Court applied polluter pays by placing restoration costs on the commercial beneficiary of the interference.
It separately considered pollution compensation in later proceedings.

The Supreme Court declared the public trust doctrine to be part of Indian law.
The lease and private occupation affecting the river and forest land were set aside to the relevant extent.
Span Motels was directed to:
remove encroachments;
restore the river environment;
bear restoration costs;
refrain from discharging untreated effluent.
The State was reminded that it cannot surrender public natural resources for private commercial use.
Use this case for: State trusteeship over rivers and the prohibition on private alteration of public natural resources.