Supreme Court dismisses PIL against Futala Lake projects, applies public trust doctrine to man-made waterbodies
Case Name: Swacch Association, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment: October 07, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1199, Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 1420 of 2024
Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria
Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Swacch Association challenging construction of recreational facilities at Futala Lake, Nagpur. It held that Futala is a man-made tank originally built in 1799 for irrigation and drinking water, and therefore does not fall within the statutory definition of “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. However, invoking the precautionary principle and the public trust doctrine, the Court affirmed that restrictions under Rule 4(2)(vi) prohibiting permanent constructions apply to protect such waterbodies. It upheld the Bombay High Court’s directions ensuring ecological safeguards while permitting the projects.
Summary: Swacch Association, an NGO, filed a PIL seeking removal of a musical fountain, viewers’ gallery, parking plaza, floating restaurant, and an artificial banyan tree set up as part of a beautification project at Futala Lake. The petitioner argued that Futala Lake is a wetland under the 2017 Rules and the constructions violated environmental norms, minimum distance regulations, and the public trust doctrine. The State and implementing authorities countered that all works were sanctioned by competent authorities, supported by environmental and heritage approvals, and designed with expert inputs, including IIT and VNIT. They argued that the artificial banyan tree and floating structures were temporary and eco-friendly, while compensatory afforestation offset tree removal.
The Court examined whether Futala Lake falls within the statutory definition of a wetland. It found that being a man-made tank constructed for irrigation and water supply, it was expressly excluded from the definition. However, relying on earlier rulings including M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, it held that identified wetlands and waterbodies, even if man-made, are protected by the doctrine of public trust. The Court stressed that governmental authorities must safeguard natural resources and eco-friendly public projects must respect ecological limits.
Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court’s order and directions, holding that the projects at Futala Lake were backed by approvals and did not violate environmental law. It reiterated that no permanent construction shall be allowed inside the lake and authorities must ensure maintenance and ecological protection. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court extending the public trust doctrine to man-made waterbodies and underscoring the duty of both the State and citizens to preserve lakes, wetlands, and ecological balance.