i

Environmental Law Project

On

Case Analysis of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

Submitted to:

Mr. Rana Navneet Roy

Faculty, Environmental Law

By:

Abhinav Surollia

Roll no. 07

Section C

Semester IV, B.A. LLB(Hons.)

Submitted on:

February 18, 2015

Hidayatullah National Law University

Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur – 493661 (C.G.)
 ii

Declaration:
I, Abhinav Surollia, of Semester IV, Section C, declare that this project submitted to H.N.L.U.,
Raipur is an original work done by me under the able guidance of Mr. Rana Navneet Roy,
Faculty of Environmental Law. The work is a bona fide creation done by me. Due references in
terms of footnotes have been duly given wherever necessary.

Abhinav Surollia

Roll No. 07
 iii

Acknowledgements:
I feel elated to work on the project “Case Analysis of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath”. The practical
realisation of the project has obligated the assistance of many persons. Firstly I express my
deepest gratitude towards Mr Rana Navneet Roy, Faculty of Environmental Law, to provide me
with the opportunity to work on this project. His able guidance and supervision were of extreme
help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of this project.

I would also like to thank The University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive
database resources in the library and for the internet facilities provided by the University.

Some printing errors might have crept in which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to
receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project.

Abhinav Surollia

Roll No. 07

Section C, Semester IV
 iv

Contents:
1. Declaration ii
2. Acknowledgments iii
3. Abbreviations & Acronyms v
4. Introduction vi
4.1. Research Methodology viii
4.2.Objectives viii
5. Brief Facts of the Case 1
6. Judgement 3
7. Impact of the Judgement 5
8. Conclusion 7
9. Bibliography 8
 v

Abbreviations & Acronyms:

1. Feb. February
2. Hon’ble Honourable
3. Para Paragraph
4. Rs. Rupees
5. v. Versus
 vi

Introduction:
In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath1, the Supreme Court of India through Hon'ble Justices Kuldip
Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad took notice of an article that appeared in the Indian Express stating
that a private company Span Motels Private Limited (“Span Motels”) to which the family of
Kamal Nath, a former Minister of Environment and Forests, had a direct link, had built a motel
on the bank of the River Beas on land leased by the Indian Government in 1981. Span Motels
had also encroached upon an additional area of land adjoining this leasehold area, and this area
was later leased out to Span Motels when Kamal Nath was Minister of Environment and Forests
in 1994. The motel used earthmovers and bulldozers to turn the course of the River Beas, create
a new channel and divert the river's flow in order to save the motel from damage during the
times when the river floods.

The Supreme Court of India quashed the prior approval for the additional leasehold land, and the
Government was ordered to take over the area and restore it to its original condition. Span
Motels was ordered to pay compensation to restore the environment, and the various
constructions on the bank of the River Beas were to be removed and reversed. Span motels were
required to show why a pollution fine should not be imposed, pursuant to the polluter pays
principle. Regarding the land covered by the 1981 lease, Span Motels were required to construct
a boundary wall around the area covered by this lease, and Span Motels were ordered not to
encroach upon any part of the river basin. In addition, the motel was prohibited from discharging
untreated effluents into the River.

This ruling was based on the public trust doctrine, under which the Government was considered
the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The
Court reviewed public trust cases from the United States and noted that under English Common
Law this doctrine extended only to traditional uses such as navigation, commerce and fishing,
but that the doctrine is now being extended to all ecologically important lands, including
freshwater, wetlands and riparian forests. Relying on the recent cases, especially in the United

1
(1997) 1 SCC 388.
 vii

States2, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government had committed a patent breach of public
trust by leasing this ecologically fragile land to Span Motels purely for commercial use.

This case has been one of the early instances wherein the doctrine of public trust was applied by
the Indian judiciary and the instances of interference with the environment in the name of
development and modernity were dealt with an iron fist.

2
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419.
 viii

Research Methodology:
This Research Project is doctrinal in nature. Accumulation of the information on the topic
includes wide use of primary sources such as cases as well as secondary sources like books, e-
articles etc. The matter from these sources have been compiled and analysed to understand the
concept and reproduced it afresh in this project.

Websites, dictionary and articles have also been referred.

Objectives:
The following are the objectives of this project:

1. To analyse the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath.

2. To discuss the effect of this case on Indian environmental jurisprudence.
 1

Brief Facts of the Case:

The Indian Express published an article titled “Kamal Nath dares the mighty Beas to keep his
dreams afloat” on Feb. 25, 1996, reporting that Span Motels Private Limited, which owns Span
Resorts, had floated another ambitious venture, Span Club. The family of Indian politician
Kamal Nath has direct links with this company.3 The club was built after encroaching upon
27.12 bighas of land, including substantial forestland, in 1990. The land was later regularised and
leased out to the company on April 11, 1994.

The regularisation was done when Kamal Nath was Minister of Environment and Forests. This
encroachment led to the swelling of the Beas River, and the swollen river changed its course and
engulfed the Span Club and the adjoining lawns, washing it away. For almost five months now,
the Span Resorts management has been moving bulldozers and earth movers to turn the course of
the Beas for a second time.

This has led to a worrying thought that was of the river eating into the mountains, leading to
landslides which were an occasional occurrence in that area. As a result in September, this
caused floods in the Beas and property estimated to be worth Rs. 105 crore was destroyed.

The Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests by the letter dated 24.11.1993,
addressed to the Secretary, Forest, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla conveyed its prior
approval in terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for leasing to the Motel 27
bighas and 12 biswas of forest land adjoining to the land already on lease with the Motel.

An expert committee formed to assess the situation of the area arrived at the following
conclusion that the river is presently in a highly unstable regime after the extraordinary floods of
1995, and it is difficult to predict its behaviour if another high flood occur in the near future. A
long-term planning for flood control in the Kullu Valley needs to be taken up immediately with
the advice of an organisation having expertise in the field, and permanent measures shall be
taken to protect the area so that recurrence of such a heavy flood is mitigated permanently.

3
"PM declares his FDs, Kamal Nath & Deora business interests". Indian Express. 9 June 2011, Accessed
Feb. 7, 2015.
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/pm-declares-his-fds-kamal-nath---deora-business-
interests/801260/
 2

The Supreme Court initiated suo moto action based on the newspaper item because the facts
disclosed, if true, would be a serious act of environmental degradation.

Hence as a result of this suo moto cognizance the present case came before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to adjudicate upon the matter.

The Defendants in the present case put forward two arguments. First, whatever construction
activity was done by the motel on the land under its possession and on the area around, if any,
was done with a view to protect the lease-hold land from floods. Second, Divisional Forest
Officer permitted the motel to carry out the necessary works subject to the conditions that the
department would not be liable to pay any amount incurred for the said purpose by the motel.

However, it could be easily ascertained from the facts that the Motel had made various
constructions on the surrounding area and on the banks of the river.
 3

Judgement:
Justice Kuldip Singh while delivering the judgment relied extensively on the doctrine of public
trust. The case dealt with certain forest land which was given on lease to the Motel by the state
government situated at the bank of River Beas. The area which was ecologically fragile and full
of scenic beauty should not have been permitted to be converted into private ownership and for
commercial gains.

The Judge touched up the history of the doctrine of public trust. He pointed out that the this
ancient Roman Empire legal theory came about on the idea that certain common properties such
as rivers, seashore, forests and air were held by the government in trusteeship for the free and
unimpeded use of the general public. The contemporary concern about the environment bears a
very close conceptual relationship to this legal doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources
were either owned by no one (Res Nullius) or by everyone in common. Under the English law
however the sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature and
the crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the
public interest in navigation or fishing.

The Supreme Court pointed out that our legal system is based on the English common law which
in turn includes the doctrine of public trust intrinsic to its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee
of all natural resources which are by nature meant for the use and enjoyment of the general
public. Public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs forests and
ecologically fragile lands they have the right to access and enjoyment of such resources. The
state is the trustee to such public resources and consequently it is under a legal duty to protect the
natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private
ownership.4

The court also pointed out that if there is a law made by the Parliament or the State legislature
the courts can serve as an instrument of determining the legislative intent in the exercise of its
powers of judicial review under the Constitution. This can be seen under paragraph 28 of the
judgement:

4
para. 27 of the judgement.
 4

“We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the
classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve
our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those
charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of
the changing needs of an increasing complex society, find it necessary to
encroach to some extent open lands heretofore considered in-violate to
change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the
legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the
State Legislature the courts can serve as an instrument of determining
legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the
Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting
under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources
and convert them into private ownership or for commercial use. The
esthetic use and the pres time glory of the natural resources, the
environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be
eroded for private, commercial or any other use unless the courts find it
necessary in good faith, for the public good and in public interest to
encroach upon the said resources.”5

The court directed and ordered that the public trust doctrine is a part of the law of the land and
that the prior approval granted to the government to lease the forest land for the creation of the
motel is quashed and that the government of Himachal Pradesh shall take over the areas and
restore it to its original natural conditions.

Significantly the court also ordered that the motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the
restitution of the environment and ecology of the area.

5
Paragraph 28 of the judgement.
 5

Impact of the Judgement:

After M.C. Mehta case, in Th. Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation,6 it was established that
public trust doctrine is the part and parcel of Indian legal system. Later on in M.I. Builders v.
Radhe Shyam Sahu case7 it was asserted that the public authorities should act as trustees of
natural resources. These three cases form the backbone of development of public trust doctrine in
India. Hence, the sum total of these cases evidenced that the state is not the owner of natural
resources in the country but a trustee who holds fiduciary relationship with the people.

In the recent case, court while reaffirming the doctrine observed that the action on the part of
state government is valid as per doctrine of public trust and it is a precautionary principle under
which the State should always anticipate environmental harm and take measures to avoid and
prevent illegal mining, storage and transportation of sand in the State.

Further in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.,8 this Doctrine was once
again followed wherein it was observed that deep underground water belongs to the State in the
sense that the Doctrine of Public Trust extends thereto. Ground water is considered as a part of
national wealth and it belongs to the entire society. Water is a nectar sustaining life on earth and
thus the State has a duty to protect ground water against excessive exploitation.

Again in Intellectual Forum v State of A.P.9 the Court held that natural resources which include
lakes are held by the State as a trustee of the public, and can be disposed of only in a manner that
is consistent with the nature of such a trust.

In a recent judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fomento Resorts and hotels Ltd. v.
Minguel Martins,10 the Court has reiterated the Doctrine and observed that the natural resources
including forests, water bodies, rivers, etc are held by the State as a trustee on behalf of public
and especially for future generations. The discussions on the Doctrine of Public Trust and
various case laws makes it evident that the state is not the owner of the natural resources in the

6
AIR 1999 J&K 81.
7
AIR 1999 SC 2468.
8
(2004) 10 SCC 201.
9
(2006) 3 SCC 549.
10
(2009) 3 SCC 571.
 6

country but a trustee who holds fiduciary relationship with the people. By accepting this task the
government is expected to be loyal to the interests of its citizens and to discharge its duty with
the interest of the citizens at heart and involve them in decision-making process concerning the
management of natural resources in the country. The Public Trust Doctrine may provide the
means for increasing the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment laws. Thus, under
this doctrine, the State has a duty as a trustee under Art 48A to protect and improve the
environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. While applying Art 21 (right
to life), the state is obliged to take account of Art 48A, a Directive Principle of State Policy. The
state's trusteeship duties have been expanded to include a right to a healthy environment.

Further in various states of India Legislations have been passed by the State Legislative
Assembly to give due importance to this doctrine. Kerala State Government has framed
legislation for protecting the fragile forest land following the said principle of public trust
doctrine. Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2002 was
framed following the above principles.11

11
Perumatty Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala.
 7

Conclusion:
The United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Illinois P.R Co. case on the
nature of a state's title to its tide and submerged lands nearly 110 years ago, and although courts
have reviewed tidelands trust issues many times since then, the basic premise of the trust remains
fundamentally unchanged. The Court said then that a state's title to its tide and submerged lands
is different from that to the lands it holds for sale. “It is a title held in trust for the people of the
State that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have
liberty of fishing” free from obstruction or interference from private parties.

In India M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath was the landmark judgment as far as the doctrine of public
trust was concerned. In that case Span motel, owned by the family members of Shri Kamal Nath,
Minister for Environment and Forests, Govt. of India diverted the Course of river Beas to
beautify the motel and also encroached upon some forest land. The apex court ordered the
management of the Span motel to hand over forest land to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
The Court delivered a land mark judgment and established principle of exemplary damages for
the first time in India. The Court said that polluter must pay to reverse the damage caused by his
act and imposed a fine of Rs Ten Lakhs on the Span motel as exemplary damages. The Supreme
Court of India recognized Polluter Pays Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.

Various High Courts have evidently adopted the judgment as it is evidenced by the decisions
from across the country which has already been discussed in the last chapter. The decision of the
Kerala High Court in the Plachimada case also is significant as the same has gained worldwide
attention.

It is interesting to note that in the Kamal Nath case the Supreme Court held that even if there is a
separate and a specific law to deal with the issue before the Court, it may still apply public trust
doctrine. If there is no suitable legislation to preserve the natural resources, the public authorities
should take advantage of this doctrine in addition to the fact that there was a branch of municipal
law
 8

Bibliography:
Books:

1. P.S. Jaswal & Nishtha Jaswal, Environmental Law (3rd Ed. Allahabad Law Agency).
2. S.C. Shastri, Environmental Law (5th Ed. Eastern Book Company, 2015).

Articles:

1. PM declares his FDs, Kamal Nath & Deora business interests, Indian Express, 9 June
2011,
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/pm-declares-his-fds-kamal-nath---deora-business-
interests/801260 (Accessed Feb 7, 2015).
2. Rainmaker, Post Graduate Diploma in Business Laws.

Web Sources:

1. Legal Service India, Public Trust Doctrine,

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/ptdoc.htm (Accessed Feb. 6, 2015).
2. The Lex Warrier, Public Trust Doctrine,
http://lex-warrier.in/2013/08/public-trust-doctrine/ (Accessed Feb. 6, 2015).
3. Law Teacher, Doctrine of Public Trust,
http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/doctrine-of-public-trust.php
(Accessed Feb. 6, 2015).