Revisiting the famous Public Trust Doctrine: Promoting environmental justice and human rights

The public trust doctrine is a well-settled principle of environmental law, originating from the civilizations of ancient Rome. It imposes an inviolable responsibility on the state to safeguard and preserve critical natural resources such as air, water, forests, coasts and wildlife habitats for future generations. 

This doctrine significantly limits the powers of the state to encroach on public rights and shared access to these environmental commons. 

Indian Supreme Court has played a major role in the evolved interpretation and application of this doctrine based on constitutional rights and environmental jurisprudence. 

Origins of the doctrine in the M.C. Mehta Case

• The seeds of the groundbreaking public trust doctrine were sown in Indian environmental law through the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath in 1997.
• The case was based on an unauthorized residential construction on the river bed of the Beas and Sutlej rivers in Himachal Pradesh.
• The Supreme Court held that the government does not own the environment and its resources, but is held in a sacred trust for the welfare of the people.
• The Supreme Court observed this as a blatant breach of the public trust over these natural resources.

Robust constitutional foundations

The public trust doctrine draws considerable strength and legal sanctity from core environmental tenets that are firmly enshrined in the India's constitutional framework and judicial philosophy:

• The expansive interpretation of Article 21 guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a clean, pollution-free and healthy natural environment.
• Article 48A of the Constitution lays down the state's constitutional duty and commitment to protect, safeguard and improve the environment for present and future generations.
• Article 51A(g) of the Constitution states that it is every citizen's fundamental duty to protect and improve natural resources and the environment. 

In the case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State Of A.P. & Ors, the Supreme Court held that the public trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle of “inter-generational equity”, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 

This imposes a moral obligation on the present generation to ensure the sustainable utilization of the environment and its resources for the benefit of future generations.

The jurisprudence around the concept has been later enriched by similar subsequent case laws like M. I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, Shailesh R. Shah v. State of Gujarat, Bombay Environmental Action Group v. The State of Maharashtra amongst many others.

Principle of intergenerational equity

• Another crucial concept integral to public trust doctrine and the literature on environmental law is “intergenerational equity”. 
• It emphasizes the fact that the current generation has the social and moral obligation to ensure proper conservation of limited and non-renewable natural resources.
• This is done with the intent of securing the natural resources that in turn can ensure a safe future and development for future generations.  
• This principle finds its root in the historic decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors related to the highly contentious Sardar Sarovar dam project. 
• The apex court unequivocally stated that Article 21 on the right to life includes the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. 

Role of the judiciary in advancing public trust doctrine

Looking at the broader spectrum, one can observe that the higher judiciary of India has incorporated internationally well-recognized principles such as intergenerational equity, sustainable development and the precautionary principle among others in empowering itself as a global pioneer in environmental jurisprudence and decision-making. 

The extensive and non-negotiated use of the public trust doctrine by the Supreme Court has played a key role in safeguarding our society against the over-exploitation of natural resources. Such interventions have been lauded worldwide and have influenced counterpart courts.

In recent years, the Indian judiciary has displayed a heightened ecological consciousness and engaged in deploying the public trust doctrine as a potent tool for environmental protection and justice of local communities. 

In the Vedanta Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court boldly affirmed environmental justice for the local community and enforced the polluter pays principle, as it directed the shutting down of a large integrated copper smelting plant, which was polluting the air and water, and had negative effects on the health and income of the inhabitants near Sterlite Copper plant.

In the case of Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. The Union of India, the Supreme Court stated that it is the role of the judiciary to ensure that the state lives up to its promise as a trustee of natural resources for use by the public. This judgment was a positive step towards strengthening the practical application of the public trust doctrine on the Indian land and marine territories.

In the Aravalli Sustainable Greens order in 2022, the Supreme Court attached great importance to the public trust doctrine to address reforestation and the remediation of regions that had been mined illegitimately in the Delhi ridge area which is ecologically sensitive area and ‘environmental lungs’ of the city. 

The road ahead

In our legal fight against climate change, public trust doctrine remains an indispensable tool to protect our forests, water resources, air, land and other natural resources. Time and again, courts have shown their intent to not only uphold the associated values with the famous public trust doctrine but also ensure its proper implementation. 

Supreme Court has engaged in constant deployment of the public trust doctrine to protect the rights of local communities and ensure that environmental justice reaches the last mile. 

However, with increasing corporate and business power, the doctrine is losing its relevance. The concept of intergenerational equity is under threat due to growing industrialization and environmental degradation. Even the participation of young people in environmental decision-making, at different forums, remains abysmally poor. 

This ends up hurting the true realization of this core environmental principle and subsequently affecting the implementation of the public trust doctrine. 

Strong grassroots advocacy for promoting the public trust doctrine, capacity building of various stakeholders working on environmental conservation and regular research on understanding the trends in environmental justice are some of the ways that might help in strengthening the implementation of the public trust doctrine. 

For the public trust doctrine to stay relevant in the environmental defense and justice realm, courts and other environmental stakeholders must keep promoting it to protect the rights of those who depend on forests and other natural resources for their sustenance.

Siddharth Reddy is a third-year law student at the School of Law, UPES. He is currently a Research Intern with TA.