Mandate for Comprehensive Water Body Restoration: Insights from LT. COL. SARVADAMAN SINGH OBEROI v. UNION OF INDIA

1. Introduction

The case LT. COL. SARVADAMAN SINGH OBEROI v. UNION OF INDIA, adjudicated by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on November 18, 2020, addresses the critical issue of water body restoration and management across India. Initiated as an Original Application No. 325/2015, the petitioners sought the identification, protection, and restoration of water bodies in Gurgaon, Haryana. As proceedings unfolded, the scope broadened to encompass statewide and national actions, reflecting the case's significant environmental implications.

The principal contenders in this litigation were Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi representing the applicant, against the Union of India and various state respondents responsible for environmental governance.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The NGT, upon reviewing compliance reports and observing the inadequate responses from various states, extended directives beyond Gurgaon to a nationwide mandate for water body restoration. The Tribunal emphasized the Public Trust Doctrine, mandating states to serve as trustees for water resources, ensuring their conservation and restoration. Key directives included:

• All States and Union Territories (UTs) must prepare action plans for water body restoration within specified timelines.
• Designation of nodal agencies in each State/UT to oversee restoration efforts.
• Establishment of a Central Monitoring Committee (CMC) to supervise national compliance.
• Implementation of rainwater harvesting and capacity enhancement of existing water bodies.
• Imposition of penalties for non-compliance to ensure adherence to NGT directives.

The judgment underscored the necessity for scientific approaches in inventorying and assessing water bodies, advocating for unified strategies across governmental departments to achieve sustainable environmental outcomes.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The NGT referenced several landmark Supreme Court judgments to substantiate its directives:

• Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi & Ors. (2001): Affirmed the Public Trust Doctrine, emphasizing the state's role in conserving natural resources for public benefit.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2002): Reinforced the state's duty as a trustee of natural resources, mandating protection and sustainable use.
• Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. (2006): Highlighted the illegal conversion of public resources into private ownership, underlining the need for state accountability.
• Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors. (2019): Addressed the illegality of unauthorized takeovers of water bodies, reinforcing the state's fiduciary duties.

These precedents collectively reinforced the Tribunal's stance on the state's obligations towards environmental stewardship under the Public Trust Doctrine.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal's legal reasoning was grounded in the Public Trust Doctrine, asserting that natural resources like water bodies are held in trust by the state for public use and enjoyment. The core principles applied included:

• Public Trust Doctrine: States have a fiduciary duty to protect and preserve natural resources for present and future generations.
• Precautionary Principle: Emphasizes proactive measures to prevent environmental degradation even in the absence of complete scientific certainty.
• Sustainable Development: Balancing environmental conservation with socio-economic development to ensure long-term sustainability.

The Tribunal evaluated the lack of adequate action by various states despite existing laws and directives, thereby mandating a unified and scientifically robust approach to water body restoration.

3.3 Impact

The judgment holds significant implications for environmental governance in India:

• National Mandate: Establishes a clear, enforceable framework for water body restoration across all states and UTs.
• Accountability: Imposes legal and financial liabilities on states for non-compliance, enhancing accountability.
• Interdepartmental Coordination: Encourages the formation of unified nodal agencies, fostering better coordination among various governmental departments.
• Policy Integration: Aligns water body restoration efforts with national programs like AMRUT, Smart City, and MGNREGA, promoting integrated environmental management.
• Community Involvement: Emphasizes the role of local communities and Panchayats in restoration efforts, promoting grassroots participation.

Overall, the judgment sets a robust precedent for environmental litigation, reinforcing the judiciary's role in ensuring ecological balance and sustainability.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

5. Conclusion

The LT. COL. SARVADAMAN SINGH OBEROI v. UNION OF INDIA judgment by the NGT is a landmark decision reinforcing the state's obligations under the Public Trust Doctrine. By mandating comprehensive action plans and fostering interdepartmental coordination, the Tribunal ensures a structured and accountable approach to water body restoration. The emphasis on scientific assessment, community involvement, and alignment with national programs paves the way for sustainable environmental governance in India.

This judgment not only addresses immediate environmental concerns but also sets a precedent for future litigations aiming to uphold ecological integrity and public welfare.

6. References

• Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 496.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 606.
• Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC 549.
• Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors. (2019) SCC Online 1510.