THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE –

 The public trust doctrine was inherited from England’s legal system, and emerged in
1215 as a part of the Magna Carta (the document which sought of limit the powers of
the king).
 The Magna Carta specifically condemned interference with public access to navigate
bodies of water and prevented the king from giving favoured noblemen exclusive
rights to hunt or fish in certain areas.
 Though, the king was understood to own land, he had an obligation to protect it for
the use of the general public.
 Clause 33 of the Magna Carta – All the fish weirs shall be removed from the Thames,
the Medway and throughout the whole of England, except on the coast.
 The changes in the English common law enacted in 1641 and additional modifications
enacted by the Colonial ordinance in 1647, reinforced the public trust doctrine
concept that the government has an affirmative duty to administer, protect, manage,
and conserve fish and wildlife.
 Hence Government cannot relinquish its obligations to a popular vote to establish
administrative management, protection, and conservation practices for renewable
wildlife and marine resources.
 Dating back to the ancient roman law, the public trust doctrine was bought to New
England by the early English colonist.
 The doctrine, in its essence, imposes on each state a fiduciary duty to control and
protect the navigable waters and the land beneath them (trust land) that fall within the
state’s jurisdiction.
 Under the English common law, the crown held title to all of the private rights to use
and possess trust lands (jus privatum), and to all of the collective rights of the public
to use the trust lands (jus publicum).
 In America, both litigation and occasional act of congress have played roles in
defining the responsibilities of the government under the public trust
o Conservation of options – each generation should conserve the diversity of
natural and cultural resource base so that the options of future generations are
not unduly restricted.
o Conservation of quality – Each generation should maintain the quality of the
planet so that its passed on in no worse condition than that in which it was
received.
o Conservation of access – Each generation should provide its members with
equitable rights of access to the legacy of past generations and conserve this
access for future generations.
 The American Courts developed a Public Trust Doctrine to the effect that the
resources like, air, sea, water, and forests were of such great importance to the people
as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private
ownership.
 These resources are the gift of nature and that they should be made freely available to
everyone irrespective of the status in life.
 The state has the duty to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public
rather than to permit their exploitation for commercial purposes by private owners.
 Indian case in this context – M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997)
 The Mono Lake Case –
o National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (Supreme Court of California,
1983).
o Highlighted the conflict between the public trust doctrine and appropriative
water rights.
o The court held that the public trust doctrine restricts the amount of water that
can be withdrawn from navigable waterways.
o It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the public trust doctrine was being violated
due to environmental damages to Mono Lake in the form of significant water
level declines as a result of water diversions by the City of Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (DWP).
o DWP based their defences on the fact that they held permits issued by the state
for the diversions, and so diversions were allowable.
o The central issue in the case was whether appropriative water rights (granted
in the past) must consider the public trust doctrine, requiring protection of
natural resources by the state.
o More specifically the issue being addressed by the court was whether Mono
lake was a subject to public trust which would eventually invalidate LA’s use
of streams feeding the lake.
o The California Supreme Court held that the state, under the public trust
doctrine, had continuing responsibility for the states navigable waters and that
the public trust doctrine, therefore, prevented any party from appropriating
water in a manner that harmed the public trust interests. However, the court
also recognized that LA depended on these diversions as a critical water
source, and this in turn mitigated the rule of law as the court held that water
transfers were permissible even though some damage to the environment
would occur as long as this was kept to minimal harm to the extent feasible.
o This ruling established that the public trust doctrine and appropriative water
rights are "part of an integrated system of water law" and so both must be
considered when determining appropriate use of water in California.
 Subsequently, in the Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi and ORS (2001), the Supreme
Court reaffirmed the view stating: It is important to notice that material resources of
the community like forests, ponds, hillock, mountains etc., are nature’s bounty. They
maintain a delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and
healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality of life which is the
essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
 The doctrine is first mentioned in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath, where the Indian
Supreme Court applied public trust with regard to the protection and preservation of
natural resources.
o In this case, the State Government granted lease of riparian forestland to a
private company for commercial purpose.
o A report published in a national newspaper alleged that the motel management
interfered with the natural flow of the river in order to divert its course and to
save the motel from future floods.
 o The Supreme Court initiated suo motu action based on the newspaper item
because the facts disclosed, if true, would be a serious act of environmental
degradation.
o In their view, applying the polluter pays principle, the Court directed the
developer to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the
environment and ecology of the area.
o It had no difficulty in holding that the Himachal Pradesh government
committed a patent breach of public trust by leasing out the ecologically
fragile land to be developed.
 M.I. Builders Pvt Ltd v. Radhe Shyam Sahu and Ors (1999)
o The court applied the Public Trust Doctrine for upholding the order of
Allahabad High Court which quashed the decision of Lucknow Nagar
Mahapalika permitting appellant – M.I Builders Pvt. Ltd to construct an
underground shopping complex in Jhandewala Park, Aminabad Market,
Lucknow, and directed demolition of the construction made on the park land.
o The High Court noted that Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika had entered into an
agreement with the appellant for construction of shopping complex and given
it full freedom to lease out the shops and also to sign agreement on its behalf
and held that this was impermissible.
o On appeal by the builders, the court held that the terms of the agreement were
unreasonable, unfair and atrocious.
o The court then invoked the public trust doctrine and held that being a trustee
of the park on behalf of the public, the Nagar Mahapallika could not have
transferred the same to the private builders and thereby deprive the residents
of the area of the quality of life to which they were entitled under the
Constitution and Municipal Laws.
 The State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd (2004)
o The public trust doctrine was extended to cover deep underground water.
o Some rights are capable of granted by holders of same or higher rights and
some only by the State. Even the State, having regard to the doctrine of ‘
public trust’ may not have any power to grant any right in relation to certain
matters.
o Holder of a land may have only a right of user and cannot take any action or to
any deeds as a result whereof the right of others is affected.
 Fomento Resorts v Miguel Martins (2009) – cited the M.C Mehta v Kamal Nath case
decision.
 Reliance Natural Resources Ltd v. Reliance Industries (2010) –
o The Indian Supreme Court recognized in the context of resolving a complex,
intra-family business dispute that the Public Trust Doctrine applies in the
context of resolving a complex, intra-family business dispute that the Public
Trust Doctrine applies to natural gas deposits located in Indian waters.
o In that case, the Government of India had leased rights to certain offshore
lands to a private consortium for natural gas development and production
pursuant to a production sharing contract.
o The court held in part that a clause of the public agreement through which the
family members had implemented their private agreement to divide up their
 business interests must be interpreted so as to require consideration of both the
government’s natural gas policy and the broader national and public interest.
THE POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE (PPP) –
The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) is an essential environmental law concept that ensures
those responsible for pollution bear the costs associated with its prevention, control, and
cleanup. It is widely used in international and national environmental policies, including in
India, where it has been upheld by courts and incorporated into environmental legislation.
1. Meaning and Origin of the Polluter Pays Principle
The Polluter Pays Principle was first recognized internationally by the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1972. It later became a key part of
global environmental frameworks such as:
 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 (Principle 16), which
emphasized that polluters should bear the costs of pollution, considering public
interest and without distorting international trade.
In India, PPP is part of the broader sustainable development framework and is enforced by
the judiciary and environmental laws.
2. Legal Framework for the Polluter Pays Principle in India
The Polluter Pays Principle has been embedded in India’s environmental legal system
through various laws and judicial rulings. Some of the key laws that incorporate this principle
include:
A. The Environment Protection Act, 1986
 Provides broad powers to the government to regulate industries and penalize those
causing environmental harm.
 Gives authority to impose penalties, fines, and orders for restoration of the
environment.
B. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
 Empowers the Central and State Pollution Control Boards to take action against water
pollution.
 Industries responsible for polluting water bodies must pay for treatment and
restoration.
C. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
 Establishes mechanisms for air quality monitoring.
 Polluting industries are required to install pollution control devices at their own cost.
D. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010
 NGT was established as a specialized body to handle environmental disputes
efficiently.
  It applies the Polluter Pays Principle and directs industries to compensate for
environmental degradation.
3. Key Judicial Interpretations of the Polluter Pays Principle in India
Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court and NGT, have played a crucial role in enforcing
PPP.
A. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

Facts of the Case:

 An environmental organization filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against private
industries in Bichhri village, Rajasthan, for polluting the environment.
 The industries, including Hindustan Agro Chemical Limited, were manufacturing
hazardous chemicals like Oleum and H-acid without proper clearance.
 These industries failed to install effluent treatment plants, leading to the release of
highly toxic waste into the soil and groundwater.
 The pollution contaminated the water table, making it unsafe for drinking and
destroyed agricultural land, rendering it unfit for cultivation.
Issues of the Case:
1. Did the industries take necessary environmental protection measures?
2. Should the polluting industries be held financially liable for the environmental
damage caused?
Judgment of the Case:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the villagers, holding the industries responsible
for the pollution.
 The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) was applied for the first time in India.
 The court ordered the industries to pay ₹37.385 crores for environmental restoration,
with a 12% compound interest per annum for failure to pay.
 The industries were shut down, and the court emphasized the need for future
industrial planning with environmental considerations.
 The judgment reinforced that polluters must bear the cost of remediation and set a
precedent for future environmental cases in India.
B. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
 Addressed pollution caused by tanneries in Tamil Nadu.
 The court held that industries violating environmental norms should bear the cost of
cleaning up the pollution.
 Introduced the Precautionary Principle along with PPP.
C. Bhopal Gas Leak Case
D. Taj Trapezium Case

4. Challenges in Implementing the Polluter Pays Principle in India

Despite being well-established in law, PPP faces several challenges in India:
 1. Weak Enforcement:
o Regulatory bodies like the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State
Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) often lack the resources and power to
enforce penalties effectively.
2. Lack of Accurate Pollution Cost Assessment:
o Determining the exact financial cost of pollution is difficult, making it
challenging to impose fair penalties.
3. Industries Passing the Burden to Consumers:
o Some companies simply increase the price of products to cover pollution
penalties rather than investing in cleaner technologies.
4. Political and Corporate Influence:
o Large industries sometimes escape strict liability due to political connections
and weak legal actions.
5. Delays in Environmental Justice:
o Legal proceedings related to environmental compensation can take years,
delaying relief for affected communities.
5. The Future of the Polluter Pays Principle in India
To make PPP more effective, India needs:
 Stronger enforcement mechanisms with higher penalties for polluters.
 Clearer guidelines for assessing environmental damage costs.
 Encouraging green technology adoption by industries to reduce pollution at the
source.
 Public participation in holding polluters accountable through awareness and activism.
Conclusion
The Polluter Pays Principle is a crucial tool for environmental protection in India. While it
has been recognized in legal frameworks and judicial rulings, its effectiveness depends on
strict enforcement, transparency, and corporate responsibility. Strengthening environmental
governance and ensuring compliance can make PPP a powerful mechanism for sustainable
development.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
The Precautionary Principle is a proactive approach to decision-making that aims to prevent
harm before it occurs. It suggests that when there is uncertainty about an action's potential
risks, precautionary measures should be taken to protect human health, the environment, and
ecosystems, even if complete scientific evidence is not yet available.
Why the Precautionary Principle is Important
 It helps prevent irreversible damage, such as environmental pollution, climate change,
and biodiversity loss.
 It ensures responsible decision-making, especially in fields like medicine, agriculture,
and industrial development.
 It promotes sustainability by encouraging safer alternatives and minimizing harmful
practices.
Example Applications
 Environmental Protection: Banning harmful pesticides before their full long-term
effects are known.
 Public Health: Restricting the use of certain chemicals in food packaging until their
safety is confirmed.
 Climate Change: Taking action to reduce carbon emissions even if every detail of
climate impact is not fully understood.
In simple terms, the Precautionary Principle is about being cautious and acting early to
prevent harm rather than dealing with consequences later.
ORIGIN- In one of the Parliamentary Earth Summit of UN Conference on Environment and
Development, Dalai Lama stated that Tibet may be the first country in which the principle
originated because from the seventeenth century itself Tibet started to take proactive
measures so save the environment. [3] For them, the struggle between protection of
environment and safeguard of human health gave rise to the concept.
The first definition is given in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration of 1992. It states that to
protect the environment every state should apply the principle to the best of their abilities.
When there are chances of irreversible and serious damage, lack of full scientific should not
be the reason for the postponement of preventive measure.

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

1. Expectant Action: There is an obligation to make an anticipatory move to forestall hurt.

Government, business, and local gatherings, just as the overall population, share this
obligation.

2. Right to Know: “The people group has the option to know total and exact data on possible
human wellbeing and ecological impacts related to the determination of items,”
administrations, tasks, or plans. The weight to supply this data lies with the defender, not with
the overall population.
3. Other Assessment: A commitment exists to analyze a full scope of options and select the
option with the most unexpected effect on human well-being and the climate, including the
possibility of sitting idle.

4. Full Cost Accounting: When assessing expected other options, there is an obligation to
think about all the sensibly predictable expenses, including crude materials, fabricating,
transportation, use, cleanup, inevitable removal, and well-being costs regardless of whether
such costs are not reflected in the underlying charge

5. Participatory Decision Process: Decisions applying the Precautionary standard should be

straightforward, participatory, and educated by the best accessible science and other pertinent
data.

In 1996, Kuldip Singh J in Vellore Citizen Government Assistance Forum v Union of India ,
A Public Interest Litigation was filed by Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India. The petition was filed against the enormous discharge of untreated
effluent by the tanneries which lead to the pollution in the State of Tamil Nadu. The untreated
effluent was discharged in the river Palar which is the main source of water supply in the
area. These tanneries in Tamil Nadu caused environmental degradation in the area. These
effluents have spoiled the physio-chemical properties of the soil, and have contaminated
groundwater by percolation.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India was a landmark case concerning pollution
from tanneries and industries in Tamil Nadu. The petition highlighted the contamination of
the Palar River and its impact on the region’s water supply.
The Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India directed the central
government to establish an authority under the Environment Protection Act, applying the
precautionary and polluter pays principles. It imposed fines on tanneries, mandated common
treatment facilities and ordered the closure of non-compliant units.
The court also affirmed the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board’s guidelines and directed the
formation of a “Green Bench” in the Madras High Court. The case set important precedents
for environmental protection and enforcement in India.
Proclaimed that the standard includes three conditions:
1. State governments and legal authorities must anticipate, prevent, and address the
causes of environmental degradation.
2. When there is a risk of serious and irreversible damage, a lack of complete scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason to delay preventive measures.
 3. The responsibility to prove that an action is environmentally safe lies with the
developer, industrialist, or actor undertaking the activity.
MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath is the first landmark case in which the doctrine of public trust was
introduced into India. The Supreme Court made this landmark judgment regarding
environmental protection by mentioning the Doctrine of Public Trust.
In this case, specific forest land which was situated at the River Beas was given for lease to
the Motel by the state government. In order for the Motel to be safe from the future flood
from the river, the Motel attempted to change the river’s natural flow. When the supreme
court came to know through a newspaper publication that the Motel is planning to change the
natural course of the water, the supreme court interfered to stop the actions of the Motel.
The supreme court, in this case, introduced the Public Trust Doctrine and stated that certain
natural resources like water, air, sea and forest are very important for living which no one in
person can own. The honourable court held that certain natural resources are public property
and not private property and are to be managed in trust by the state for the benefit of the
public at large.
The court put a great responsibility for the state by making it a duty of the state to protect the
natural resources. It further observed that it is the duty of each generation to protect and
preserve the natural resources for the future generation. It also stressed that wherever there is
no law relating to the protection of natural resources, the doctrine of the public can be used to
make decisions.
Stating all the importance of protecting the environment and the natural resources, the
Supreme Court applied the polluter pays principle and directed the Motel to pay
compensation for the destruction it has done in such an ecologically fragile land.