Case Overview

Case: SWACCH Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1199 (Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Date: 07 October 2025

Bench: B.R. Gavai, CJI; K. Vinod Chandran, J.; N.V. Anjaria, J. (Author)

Introduction

This appeal arose from a public interest litigation concerning development and recreational activities at Futala (Telangkhedi) Lake, Nagpur—a historic, man‑made waterbody constructed in 1799. The petitioner, SWACCH Association (a registered society and public trust), challenged:

• Installation of a musical fountain and related machinery within the lake body.
• Construction of a viewers’ gallery along the lake bank.
• Construction of a multi-storey parking plaza on land at Mauje Futala (Khasra No. 13/3).
• Floating restaurant/banquet and an artificial “Banyan Tree” structure used as a 3D projection screen.

The petitioner’s core premise was that Futala Lake is a “wetland” within the meaning of Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017 (2017 Rules), and therefore the restrictions in Rule 4—particularly the prohibition on permanent constructions under Rule 4(2)(vi)—apply. Invoking Articles 21, 48‑A, and 51‑A(g), and the public trust doctrine (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath), the petitioner sought demolition/removal of the facilities and restoration.

The High Court of Bombay declined relief, holding that Futala Lake is not a “wetland” under the 2017 Rules, but, relying on Supreme Court directions in M.K. Balakrishnan and a 2022 MoEFCC Office Memorandum (OM), required that the spirit of Rule 4 (especially the bar on permanent construction) be respected to protect the lake. The petitioner appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

• Futala Lake is not a “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. Being a man‑made waterbody specifically constructed historically for irrigation/drinking purposes, it falls within the express exclusions (paras 5.3.1–5.4).
• Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules does not apply stricto sensu to Futala Lake (para 5.5). Nonetheless, the Court endorsed the High Court’s directions to honor the spirit of Rule 4(2)(vi) by preventing permanent constructions, grounded in the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine (paras 5.6–5.9).
• Public trust doctrine extended to man‑made or artificial waterbodies (paras 7–9): The Court expressly held that the doctrine is not limited to “natural” lakes/rivers but also covers man‑made/ artificial bodies drawn from natural resources that contribute to environmental and ecological balance.
• No demonstrated ecological harm from the impugned structures. On facts, the viewers’ gallery is on the bund road, does not touch embankment, is above dam level, and is in the dry zone; the floating stage/banquet and “Banyan Tree” screen are not permanent structures (no foundations/bed embedment; removable); multiple statutory approvals and NOCs were obtained and remained unchallenged (paras 5, 5.2, 5.2.5).
• Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the High Court’s balancing directions: preserve environmental integrity while enabling public good and sustainable recreational use; ensure cleanliness, maintenance, and no permanent construction within the lake (paras 5.7–5.9, 10–11).

Detailed Analysis

1) Statutory Framework and Key Findings

Wetlands Rules, 2017—Definition (Rule 2(1)(g)). The Court reproduced the definition emphasizing the exclusions for “river channels, paddy fields, human‑made water bodies/tanks specifically constructed for drinking water purposes and structures specifically constructed for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation purposes” (para 5.3.2).

Application to Futala Lake. Historical records show Futala is a man‑made reservoir formed by damming the Futala stream, originally meant for irrigation/drinking water to serve the Telangkhedi precinct (paras 5.3.4–5.3.5). Consequently, it falls outside the statutory definition, and Rule 4 restrictions do not apply ex proprio vigore (paras 5.4–5.5).

2) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 230/2001, orders dated 08.02.2017 and 04.10.2017)

  The Supreme Court had directed application of the principles of Rule 4 (then of the 2010 Rules, later aligned with the 2017 Rules via MoEFCC’s 08.03.2022 OM) to 2,01,503 wetlands mapped under the National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA). The High Court relied on this and the MoEFCC’s 08.03.2022 OM to extend protection to NWIA‑listed lakes such as Futala even absent a formal “wetland” notification (paras 5.6–5.6.3). The Supreme Court agreed that, while Rule 4 does not strictly apply to Futala due to the statutory exclusion, the protective ethos embodied in Rule 4 must inform management through the public trust and precautionary frameworks (paras 5.6.3, 5.9).

• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388

  Reaffirmed as the foundation of the public trust doctrine in India. The Court quoted and endorsed the principle that certain resources (air, sea, waters, forests) are held by the State in trust for the public, not for private or purely commercial appropriation (paras 6–6.2.1). Crucially, the present judgment extends this doctrine’s ambit beyond “natural” resources to include man‑made or artificial waterbodies derived from nature and contributing to ecological balance (paras 7–9). This doctrinal extension is the most notable jurisprudential development of the case.

3) Legal Reasoning and Method

• Strict statutory interpretation of “wetland.” The Court adopted a plain‑meaning approach to Rule 2(1)(g), foregrounding the enumerated exclusions. As Futala is a historic human‑made tank meant for irrigation/drinking, it categorically falls outside the definition. This resolves the threshold question against the petitioner’s premise (paras 5.3–5.5).

• Precautionary and public trust overlays. Recognizing that many urban lakes—though not “wetlands” strictly defined—serve vital ecological and social functions, the Court endorsed the High Court’s protective directions as extensions of the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine (para 5.9). Put simply: even absent statutory coverage, Courts may craft equitable, conservation‑oriented directions modeled on Rule 4 to prevent ecological harm.

• Fact‑sensitive appraisal of “permanent construction.” On the evidence, the Court found:

  • Viewers’ gallery lies on the bund road at a height above the dam level, does not touch the embankment, and is in the dry zone; no ecological harm shown (paras 5.2, 5.2.1).
  • Floating stage/banquet and the artificial “Banyan Tree” screen lack permanent foundations, are removable, and occupy a minuscule area (~0.51% of the lake surface); claims of massive stone dumping (7000 tonnes) were rejected as exaggerated (paras 5.2.2–5.2.5).
  • Designs vetted by technical institutions (IIT Mumbai; VNIT Nagpur), supported by multiple NOCs and approvals, none of which were challenged (paras 5, 5.1, 5.2.5).
  This led the Court to conclude the structures are not “permanent” in nature for the purposes of the protective directive (paras 5.2.5, 5.7), harmonizing recreational use with environmental safeguards.

• Administrative legality and deference. The Court noted that numerous statutory permissions and heritage approvals had been granted and remained unchallenged (paras 5, 5.1, 5.1.1). In a PIL, collateral attacks on their merits without directly impeaching those orders will not, by themselves, suffice to dislodge projects—especially where a protective regime can be judicially superimposed to prevent ecological harm.

4) The Court’s Protective Directions (Affirmed/Reiterated)

• Even though Rule 4 does not strictly apply, no permanent constructions shall be undertaken within Futala Lake (paras 5.6.3, 5.7).
• The respondents (including Nagpur Municipal Corporation) must ensure that nearby activities do not damage the lake, and that the entire waterbed and associated recreational/beautification structures are kept clean and well‑maintained (para 5.7).
• Courts and authorities must pursue the “twin objectives”: public good for citizens and environmental protection without ecological damage, including to aquatic life (para 5.8).

5) The New Juridical Emphasis: Public Trust Doctrine Extended

The judgment states unequivocally that the public trust doctrine applies not only to natural resources but also to “man‑made or artificially created waterbodies as well as the things and the objects from nature in order to promote ecology and environment,” so long as they are created from natural resources and contribute to environmental health (paras 7–9). This is a significant doctrinal clarification with broad ramifications for urban lakes, tanks, step‑wells, artificial wetlands, and other created water infrastructure with ecological functions.

6) Impact and Likely Future Trajectory

• Urban waterbody governance. Municipalities and development authorities can undertake public‑oriented recreational and heritage projects around man‑made lakes, but permanent constructions within the waterbody will face heightened scrutiny. Temporary, removable, and ecologically benign installations are preferred.
• Classification disputes. Stakeholders seeking to invoke the 2017 Rules must closely assess the Rule 2(1)(g) exclusions. Man‑made tanks for irrigation/drinking/recreation are not “wetlands” under the 2017 Rules, but may still receive equitable protection through the public trust and precautionary overlays.
• NWIA inventory effects. The Court acknowledges the continuing relevance of M.K. Balakrishnan and the MoEFCC OM (08.03.2022) to protect NWIA‑mapped waterbodies. Even if formal “wetland” notification is absent, Rule‑4‑like constraints can be judicially imported to avert irreversible harm.
• Project design guidelines. Designers and authorities should:
  • Favor floating/removable structures without bed embedment.
  • Site fixed infrastructure in the dry zone/bund area without impinging on embankments or catchment areas.
  • Undertake environmental management plans, dam stability studies, and independent design vetting.
  • Secure all necessary NOCs (including heritage approvals) and ensure transparent public engagement.
• PIL strategy. Environmental litigants must, where appropriate, directly challenge the underlying permissions/approvals. Absent such challenge, courts may opt for balancing orders that preserve ecology through operational constraints rather than quashing sanctioned projects.
• Article 21 and sustainable development. The judgment harmonizes the right to a healthy environment with sustainable development—endorsing amenity creation where demonstrably non‑harmful, while imposing strong guardrails against permanent intrusions within waterbodies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Wetland” under the 2017 Rules: A protected ecological category; however, expressly excludes human‑made waterbodies/tanks built for drinking, irrigation, recreation, aquaculture, or salt production. These exclusions are decisive; if a waterbody falls within them, the 2017 Rules do not apply “as law.”
• NWIA (National Wetland Inventory and Assessment): A mapping exercise listing over 2 lakh waterbodies. The Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan directed protective application of Rule‑4‑type principles to these mapped sites even prior to formal notifications, later reflected in the MoEFCC OM (08.03.2022).
• Rule 4(2)(vi) – No permanent construction: In wetlands, permanent constructions are barred within 50m from the mean high flood level (save for boat jetties). Although Futala is not a wetland, the Court endorsed enforcing the spirit of this bar to prevent permanent structures in the lake.
• “Permanent” vs “Temporary” structures: Courts examine whether a structure:
  • Has foundations embedded in the lake bed or embankment.
  • Is removable without irreversible physical alteration.
  • Occupies minimal area and lacks lasting environmental footprint.
  • Is supported by ecological/engineering due diligence.
  On this test, the “Banyan Tree” screen and floating stage/banquet were “temporary,” not “permanent.”
• Public trust doctrine: The State is a trustee of certain resources for public use and ecological integrity. This judgment extends the doctrine to man‑made waterbodies created from natural resources that contribute to environmental well‑being.
• Precautionary principle: Where environmental risk is uncertain, take preventive measures. Here, it justified court‑imposed guardrails (no permanent constructions; maintenance and cleanliness mandates) even when strict statutory coverage was unavailable.
• “Wise use” (Rule 2(1)(i)): Maintenance of ecological character through an ecosystem approach within sustainable development—used as an interpretive beacon even for non‑wetland waterbodies.

Conclusion

This decision clarifies three enduring propositions in India’s environmental jurisprudence:

1. Clarity of scope: Man‑made tanks for irrigation/drinking/recreation fall outside the statutory “wetland” definition under the 2017 Rules; Rule 4 cannot be invoked as a matter of strict legal right for such waterbodies.
2. Protective continuity: Courts may nevertheless apply the spirit of Rule 4 to NWIA‑mapped and other ecologically significant waterbodies through the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine, imposing robust operational constraints to preclude ecological harm.
3. Doctrinal expansion: The public trust doctrine—rooted in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath—now expressly extends to man‑made or artificial waterbodies derived from nature that contribute to environmental health, reinforcing Article 21’s right to a healthy environment while accommodating sustainable development.

By upholding the High Court’s “balancing exercise,” the Supreme Court articulates a pragmatic template for urban lake governance: preserve ecological integrity through no‑permanent‑construction rules, rigorous maintenance, and science‑vetted, removable installations—while enabling carefully curated public access and cultural amenities. For policymakers, developers, and civil society, the message is clear: development around urban waterbodies can proceed, but only under a vigilant public trust lens that prioritizes ecological resilience and intergenerational equity.