Supreme Court: The appellant, Swacch Association challenged the judgment and order dated 30-11-2023, passed by the Bombay High Court, whereby it disposed of the Public Interest Litigation, filed for raising grievance regarding constructions and recreational activities set up in and around the Futala Lake in Nagpur, Maharashtra. The 3-Judges Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria*, JJ., noted that the historical facts showed that the Futala Lake was a man-made waterbody constructed for drinking water and irrigation purpose. The Court thus opined that the Lake was not a ‘wetland’ as defined in Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’), and so the restrictions of activity in the ‘wetland’, provided under Rule 4 would not apply stricto sensu to Futala Tank.
The Court reiterated the directions passed by the High Court that the respondent should ensure that the spirit of Rule 4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules would be respected and structure of any permanent nature within the lake would not be undertaken. The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the High Court’s judgment and order was proper and legal, with no error and the directions issued by the High Court were a balancing exercise.
Background
The appellant, an organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, claiming to be a body engaged in the green practices and for promoting a healthy environment, contended that the Futala Lake was a ‘wetland’ and should be protected for its environmental value and that the constructions made in and around it, were of permanent nature. The appellant stated that the installation of the Musical Fountain and machinery inside the body of the Futala Lake, along with the construction of the Viewer’s Gallery on the bank of the Futala Tank should be declared illegal and against the public trust principle.
The appellant sought a restraint order against Respondent 4-Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation, from carrying out further construction of the Parking Plaza and against Respondent 5-Nagpur Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, from holding Musical Fountain Show, Laser Show, and Multimedia Show at the Futala Tank. The appellant’s grievance was that the construction of nine-storeyed building near the Futala Tank was proposed for parking, food court, etc., but there was a Floating Restaurant, artificial Banyan Tree and a Musical Fountain inside the body of the lake.
The appellant contended that Futala Lake was identified as ‘wetland’ on the map of Wetland Atlas of Maharashtra which was part of the National Wetland Atlas. Further, the said Lake was a ‘wetland’ within the meaning of Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules, therefore, the restrictions contained in Rule 4(2)(vi) would apply, particularly, Rule 4(1)(iv). It was stated that the High Court by a reasoned order dated 5-7-2023 refused to grant any interim relief to the appellant and had stated that Futala Lake did not fall within the purview of Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. However, it observed that since the lake was mentioned as ‘wetland’ in the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment, prohibition in Rule 4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules deserved to be treated as relevant to protect the lake.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that various permissions were granted by the competent authorities for the projects and recreational facilities at the Futala Lake, and the necessary sanction of the Heritage Conservation Committee had been obtained before taking the permission for development of Futala Tank and Parking Plaza, etc., which was granted by the Heritage Committee after obtaining a compliance report. The Court stated that the appellant did not challenge the said permissions and No Objection Certificates at any stage of the proceedings.
The Court took note that the respondents, in order to ensure the protection of ecological balance, carried out compensatory afforestation regarding the trees that had to be removed, and thus, planted trees at the location given by the Municipal Corporation. The respondents claimed that the Floating Musical Fountain Show helped to improve water quality in the Futala Tank and its aquatic life also enhanced. Further, the Viewer’s Gallery and the Parking Plaza were in the dry zone and the Gallery worked as protection against dumping of waste and encroachment.
The Court stated that the work of Viewer’s Gallery was executed as per the approved plan and was constructed on the road adjacent to the precinct of the Futala Tank, which did not disturb the existing precinct. It was 4 metres above the dam level, which was permissible under the guidelines, and the Gallery did not touch the embarkment structure. Thus, it could not be said that the Viewer’s Gallery had any adverse ecological effect. Further, the construction of the floating restaurant, banquet and the platform could not be categorized as permanent construction. Also, as the structure of Banyan tree was not embedded on the bed of the lake, there was no foundational support laid for it inside the tank, and it was removable at any time, so the tree also could not be termed as permanent structure.
The Court referred to the definition of ‘wetland’ in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules and opined that the Futala Lake was not classifiable within the statutory definition. The definition showed that the statutory concept of wetland did not include river channels, water body and tanks which were specifically constructed for drinking water purposes and the structural construction was for aquaculture, salt production, recreation, and irrigation purposes. The Court noted that the historical facts showed that the lake was a man-made waterbody constructed for drinking water and irrigation purpose. Thus, the Futala Lake was not a ‘wetland’ as defined in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules and so the restrictions of activity in the ‘wetland’, provided under Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules would not apply stricto sensu to Futala Tank.
The Court reiterated the directions passed by the High Court that the respondent should ensure that the spirit of Rule 4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules would be respected and structure of any permanent nature within the lake would not be undertaken. Further, the activities near the Futala Lake did not lead to any damage to the Lake and the entire waterbed along with its recreational and beautification structures were kept clean and properly maintained.
The Court stated that the said waterbody should continue to exist with two objectives, (a) to bring public good for the Nagpur citizens; and (b) to contribute to maintain environment friendliness without causing any ecological damage, both to the waterbody and to the quality of aqua life. Even if the waterbodies or wetlands were not covered with the statutory definition, there was a recognition of precautionary principle and doctrine of public trust. It meant that the public had a right to expect certain natural things including waterbodies, wetlands, and natural lands like forests to retain their natural ingredients, and that the idea of maintenance of their original characteristics found its way into the law of the land.
The Court opined that the public trust doctrine need not be limited to the natural bodies such as waterbodies, wetlands, lakes, rivers which were nature’s gifts, but was also applicable to man-made or artificially created waterbodies and the things and the objects from nature to promote ecology and environment. Further, all man-made/artificial bodies created from natural resources that contribute to the environment and were eco-friendly in their existence, must be subject to the said doctrine. It would ensure the right of healthy environment and ecological balance recognized for the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution, while promoting sustainable development for public good.
The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the judgment and order of the High Court was proper and legal, with no error and the directions issued by the High Court were a balancing exercise.
[Swacch Association, Nagur v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2144, decided on 7-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice N.V. Anjaria
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant(s): Anindita Mitra, AOR; Satyajit Sarna, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.; Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anagha S. Desai, Gharote Anurag A, Rohit Anil Rathi, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Shashank Singh, Rajat Joseph, AOR; Shekhar Naphade, S. K. Mishra, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Advocates; Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B. Varma , Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Gagan Sanghi, Farah Hashmi, Salonee Paranjape, Karan Bishnoi, A.s Jamuna, Satyajit A. Desai, Yogeeta Chaudhary, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh, Pratik Kumar Singh, Puneet Sharma, Shreevardhan Dhoot, Parth Johri, Sanchit Agrahari, Viddusshi, Kalyani Dilip Bhide, Varad Kilor, Ashmit Raj, Niharika Singh, Yashas Rk, Mukesh Verma, Vatsala Tripathi, Krishna Prakash Dubey, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Milind Modi, Sonali Jain, Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Kaustubh D. Kadasne, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
