(2026) 2 Supreme Court Cases 759 | Decided: October 7, 2025
Bench: B.R. Gavai, C.J., K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Also referred to as Futala Tank or Telangkhedi Tank, Futala Lake is an artificial water body located on the west side of Nagpur City, Maharashtra. Constructed in 1799, by Shri Gyanoji Bhosale, the then ruler, the Lake was constructed for irrigation purposes. Approximately 200 hectares in area along with its catchment were considered for the Lake.
The appellant, Swacch Association, Nagpur is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Association moved a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) partly against the constructions and partly against the recreational facilities established in and around the Futala Lake by the Respondent Authorities, before the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
The main argument of the appellant was that Futala Lake is a ‘wetland’ as per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and should be protected by the law. The appellant claimed that the constructions of a viewer’s gallery on the bank, a floating restaurant, artificial banyan tree and musical fountain in the body of the lake as well as a parking plaza were illegal, breached environmental laws, public trust doctrine, and were unconstitutional.
The Respondents were the State of Maharashtra, Municipal Corporation Nagpur, Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation, and the Nagpur Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. The Respondents contended that all the constructions were legally sanctioned by the competent authorities including the Heritage Conservation Committee, the Town Planning Department, and other concerned Authorities, and that the constructions were legally and factually in conformity with the applicable laws.
The High Court issued some protective directions after throwing out the PIL, for no permanent constructions to be made in the lake, and for the entire waterbed to be kept clean and maintained, along with the recreational and beautification structures. The present appeal is against the dismissal in the Supreme Court.
II. ISSUES INVOLVED
Do the orders passed by the High Court in the PG No. 784 of 2020, in the context of dismissing the PIL, protect the ecological integrity of Futala Lake?
Is Futala Lake a ‘wetland’ under the definition provided in Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and consequently invoking the limitations under Rule 4 of those Rules?
If Futala Lake is not a ‘wetland’ in the statutory sense, can Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules be invoked and the principle of precaution and the public trust doctrine applied?
Do the constructions built in and around Futala Lake, such as the floating restaurant, artificial banyan tree, viewer’s gallery and musical fountain, constitute permanent constructions and are thereby against the law?
III. RULES / LEGAL PROVISIONS APPLIED
Public Trust Doctrine: This is a principle of the Judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388, that air, water, and the forests, as natural resources, are held in trust by the State for the people, and are not subject to private ownership or trade.
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 – Rule 2(1)(g): The 2017 Rules describe a ‘wetland’ in marshes, fens, peat, or waters (whether they are created or naturally existing, permanent or temporary). This definition, importantly, does not include river courses, paddy fields, or artificial water bodies/tanks built for drinking water, aquaculture, salt ponds, recreation, and irrigation.
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 – Rule 4: Concerns restrictions on activities in/around wetlands, and more specifically prevents the construction of a permanent nature within fifty metres from the mean high flood level (4(2)(vi)).
Constitution of India – Article 21: Right to life includes in its ambit the right to a clean environment, and right to clean air and water.
Constitution of India – Article 48-A: This Article imposes a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife.
Constitution of India – Article 51-A(g): This Article imposes a duty on every citizen of India to protect and improve the environment, which includes the lakes and rivers.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 25 (along with sub – sections (1), (2), and (3) of Section 3 and Section 23): This Section gives the authority to frame the 2017 Rules.
IV. REASONING OF THE COURT
N.V. Anjaria, J. dismissed the Supreme Court appeals and classified Futala Lake and examined environmental principles involving the dismissal.
Regarding ‘Wetlands’ Classification:
The Court determined Futala Tank does not meet the statutory definition of ‘wetland’ in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. The Court found the evidence established Futala Tank was a man-made waterbody for irrigation and drinking and fell within the exclusions of the definition. The Court found the definition’s exclusion of man-made water bodies for irrigation purpose left Futala Lake outside the definition’s statutory bounds. It therefore accepted the findings of the High Court, both interim and final, on this point.
Regarding Rule 4 and Environmental Principles:
Even with this finding, the Court elaborated on a principle of law. The Court stated that even if Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules, which restricts the use of wetlands, cannot be applied stricto sensu to Futala Lake, the essence and limitations of Rule 4 are applicable and endure, due to the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine. The Court found the limitations and constraints of Rule 4, when applied to water bodies which fall outside the strict definition, is of judicial pragmatism and a positive approach, and is in the interest of safeguarding such water bodies from environmental degradation.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 805 from which it was adjudged that the principles of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 would be applicable to all 2,01,503 wetlands identified by the Union of India which included those in the NWIA list. Futala Tank was one of those 2,01,503 wetlands in the national inventory; and therefore, on that basis and by virtue of the subsequent orders of the Supreme Court of India in 2017 and the Office Memorandum of 2022 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Rule 4 shall remain applicable to it.
On the Nature of Constructions
The Court examined every construction. The Court stated that the floating restaurant, platform and the banyan tree construction cannot be treated as permanent constructions. The artificial banyan tree which acts as a wind screen for a 3D show is constructed using kerbstones which weigh 350 tons in total and which are in the area to counter the wind; however, it is neither concreted nor affixed to the lake bed and therefore can be removed at any time. The area it covers is 25 m x 10 m, which is 0.51% of the total area of the Tank. In absence of a permanent foundation and in view of the removable nature of the construction, the Court stated that the construction cannot be treated as permanent. Moreover, the design and construction was certified and reviewed by the Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur.
On the Public Trust Doctrine:
The Court commented extensively on the public trust doctrine which it said stems from Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the doctrine was explained to mean that the state holds certain natural and, at times, artificial resources of an ecological character in trust for the entire citizenry, and such resources are neither amenable to privatization, nor to commercial exploitation that would injure or harm the interest of the public. The Court stated the doctrine applies to artificial water bodies, since they are created using natural resources. The doctrine, as stated by the Court, means that such property must be maintained for public use, must be kept for public use and may not be sold for a just equivalent of value.
On the High Court’s Directions:
The Supreme Court upheld and reiterated the High Court’s directions which included that the respondents take all necessary steps to ensure that no permanent construction of any nature is carried out in Futala Lake, construction in the vicinity is in compliance with the spirit of Rule 4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules, no activities in the vicinity damage the lake, and the entire lake waterbed and beautification of the lake is kept clean and maintained. The Court commented that the High Court’s directions represented a proper balancing exercise, and were eminently proper and legal.
V. CONCLUSION / JUDGEMENT
The appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. The appeal against the High Court’s ruling from 30-11-2023 was dismissed in full. All interim applications were consequently resolved as well.
The Court confirmed that Futala Lake, a human-created waterbody designed for irrigation, does not meet the definition of ‘wetland’ according to Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that this does not remove all environmental safeguards for the Lake. The precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine safeguard these waterbodies, and the limitations similar to Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules apply to them. The Lake must persist in fulfilling its dual goals of benefiting Nagpur’s residents and ensuring ecological sustainability without causing environmental harm.
VI. BRIEF ANALYSIS
The ruling is important for at least three reasons. Initially, it addresses the interpretive issue regarding the definition of ‘wetland’ within the 2017 Rules in a way that aligns with the statutory language by honoring the exclusions outlined in Rule 2(1)(g). Artificial water bodies created for irrigation purposes are evidently not included, and the Court rightly chooses not to extend the definition beyond its obvious interpretation.
Secondly, and more significantly, the ruling illustrates the broad application of the public trust doctrine within Indian environmental law. By asserting that even artificial waterbodies formed from natural resources are included in the doctrine’s scope, the Court indicates that the protection offered by this doctrine is not restricted to untouched natural bodies but applies to any waterbody of environmental and community importance. This is a necessary and progressive advancement considering the swift urbanization in Indian cities.
Third, the Court finds a subtle equilibrium between environmental conservation and valid developmental efforts. Instead of deeming all constructions unlawful, it assesses each building on a case-by-case basis, applies the criteria of permanence and removability, and determines that temporary recreational structures comply with the relevant standards. This method demonstrates proportionality in the judicial examination of environmental issues.
The repetition of instructions to keep the waterbed tidy and devoid of lasting intrusions further strengthens institutional responsibility, subjecting the Municipal Corporation and associated agencies to ongoing judicial supervision.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY KHUSHI CHOUDHARY FROM KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW
