Prestige Institute of Management and

Research, Indore
(An Autonomous Institution Established in 1994, Accredited with Grade ‘A++’
NAAC (UGC) ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Institute, AICTE/ UGC Approved Programs
affiliated to DAVV, Indore)

(Batch 2018 – 2023)

Case Review on- M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal

Nath and Ors. 13 December, 1996

Submitted to- Submitted By:

Mr. Jalaj Sarmandal Nikhar Jain

Ms. Sanmati Rathore
BA llb 10th sem
Section b

Roll No. :182046

Facts of the case-

“Span Motels private limited” was a private company controlled by the owners of span
Resorts that launched a new project by the name of “Span Club”, which was built on the bank
of the river. An explosive story headlined "Kamalnath dares the powerful Beas to keep his
ambitions floating" from the renowned journal "Indian Express" revealed problems with the
building of Span Club. Following the article's publication, it was discovered that Kamalnath,
the former minister of the environment and forests, had a direct stake in the Span Motel Case.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests granted the company's request to lease an
additional 27.12 bighas of forest land in a letter dated November 24, 1993. The company's
proprietors were given authorization to carry out their ambitious initiatives under the moniker
Span Club thanks to this consent, which resulted in the swollen river overflowing its banks.
Lawns nearby were washed away as a result of pressure from the employment of bulldozers,
tractors, trolleys, and earth movers to build heavily cemented embankments along the river,
which also contributed to the alteration in the Beas River's swelling course. Property worth
roughly 105 crores was damaged in 1995 by an exceptional flood brought on by the Beas
River.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether or not Mr. Kamal Nath has been precisely inducted as the Defendant in the writ
petition?

Whether or not the erection activity done by M/s SMPL was done with a vision to shield the
charter hold land from floods?

Public trust Doctrine is a part of the Indian Legal system or not?

Arguments for petitioner

The petitioner persisted in asserting that upsetting the ecological balance and causing damage
to some resources' natural state would be seen as a clear violation of the basic right protected
by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. More violations of Article 51 a(g) of the Indian
Constitution would result from this.

Arguments for respondent

The Ministry of Environment and Forests disputed the accusations and claimed he had been
added to the petition improperly. Mr. Kamal Nath further argued that the press reports were
untrue and were released with the goal to harm his reputation. One of the respondents said
that steps had been made to prevent erosion and that the river's flow had not been altered with
malicious intent. It was claimed that, with specific restrictions, the Divisional Forest Officer
authorised Span Motels to carry out the required work. Also, it was suggested that the work
was done on the property owned by Span Motel and its surroundings to protect the land from
flooding in the future.

Judgement-

The court applied the Doctrine of Public Trust carefully while rendering its decision. The
learned Supreme Court judge provided an explanation of the Public Trust Doctrine, an old
Roman legal theory that required the government to hold certain general properties or natural
resources, like rivers, seashores, forests, and air, in trust for the free and unrestricted use of
the general populace.

These resources were either res nullis or owned in common under Roman law. The
Honourable court did not think twice in deciding that the Public Trust Doctrine would in fact
apply in this case. In elaborating on the court's powers, it was correctly noted that the courts
might function as an effective instrument in evaluating the legislative purpose in situations
when a legislation has passed by the Parliament/ State legislature. The ability of judicial
review as given by the Constitution makes this conceivable. The Hon. Court found that
leasing such ecologically vulnerable land to any private entity for encroachment and
construction constituted a violation of the Public Trust Doctrine by the Himachal Pradesh
Government.

The State Forest Department leased 27.2 bighas (2.22 ha) of forest land to Span Motels, and
the Honorable Court correctly revoked that transaction. In addition, a four-meter wall that
served as a barrier beyond which they were not permitted to use the property linked to the
river basin was to be built. The National Environment Engineering Research Institute
(hereafter referred to as "NEERI") was given instructions by the Honorable court to evaluate
the region and estimate the cost necessary to repair any harm brought on by the project. The
Polluter Pays Principle was then used to force Span Motels to make a payment in restitution.
The money was intended to be used towards the area's environmental restoration. The Hotel
was even prohibited from using waste into river Beas.
Analysis-

The Minister of Environment and Forest failed to uphold environmental justice in its real
sense in the instance of the Span Motel, but the judiciary did. In contrast, one of the factors
that contributed to Span Motels' obtaining the lease was the then-Minister of Environment
and Forestry, Mr. Kamal Nath. The nation's environmental resources and the problems they
cause were positioned below the Ministry of Environment and Forest's financial interests.
The Environment Minister's family was found to possess the bulk of the stock in Span
Motels, and the Hon'ble Court also took note of the Environment Minister's "desire of owning
a property beside a river." This case demonstrated how the responsible government officials
and figures did not show any interest in addressing the pressing problem of environmental
deterioration, but rather encouraged it. Further devastation of the forest and river could only
be stopped thanks to the tenacious attorneys and the Apex Court. Even the state government
handled this problem in a terrible way by allowing for irreparable harm. The Public Trust
Doctrine was acknowledged and used by the court in a good manner, however the Minister of
the Environment and Forest did not comprehend it in both letter and spirit.

Principal laid in the case-

One of the most significant and historically significant rulings ever handed down was in this
case. The "Public Trust Doctrine" was brilliantly interpreted by the Supreme Court such that
India could use it. As a result, the "Polluter Pay Principle" and the "Principle of Deterrence"
were established.

Conclusion-

The M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. case established precedent for environmental
legislation and was a prime example of the Minister of Environment and Forest misusing his
authority. The case demonstrates how the government (in this instance, the Minister of
Environment and Forest along with the Himachal Pradesh State Government and the
concerned officers) demonstrated their immaturity in protecting the environment, while the
judiciary demonstrated its maturity in upholding environmental justice. In this instance, the
abuse of authority directly impacted the environment and exacerbated the issue of
environmental deterioration.