Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Environmental Laws > Sustainable Development > Public Trust Doctrine
The origins of the public trust doctrine are traceable to Roman law concepts of common property. Under Roman law, the air, the rivers, the sea, and the seashore were incapable of private ownership; they were dedicated to the use of the public. Roman law recognized the public trust doctrine whereby common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests, and the air were held by the Government in trust for free and unimpeded use of the public. These resources were either owned by no one (res nullious) or by everyone in common (res communious). A similar concept of ‘Public Trust’ may also be traced under the English Common Law. “Under the English common law, however, the sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interest in navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the public”.
Need of the Concept:
Private ownership of the natural resources can lead to undue deprivation of natural resources for a large section of society. Therefore the modern state is mandated to hold them in public trustee and ensures the equal distribution for a sustainable social structure of the human beings.
Public trust doctrine serves two purposes: it mandates affirmative state action for effective management of resources and empowers citizens to question ineffective management of natural resources.
Case Laws:
The doctrine of Public Trust got recognition in leading American Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois, 146 US 387 (1892), case. In the year 1869, the Illinois Legislature made a substantial grant of submerged land along the shores of Lake Michigan extending one mile out from the shoreline to the Illinois Central Railroad. This was repealed in 1869. The State of Illinois sued to quit title. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States differentiated the nature of the title of the state in the land intended to be used for the public good from the land intended for sale or other commercial purposes.
In National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 33 Cal 3d 419, case, the Supreme Court of California considered whether a permit can be granted to the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles to appropriate water of four of the five streams flowing into Mono Lake, which is the second largest lake in California. The lake consists of saline water and no fish but supports a large number of Brine Ships and bird life besides being a tourist attraction. The Supreme Court of California upheld the Doctrine of Public trust. The Court also opined that ‘the public trust is more than an affirmation of State power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands, and tidelands, surrendering that right of protection only in rare cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust…’
In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 case (Span Motel Case), the club was built after encroaching upon 27.12 bighas of land, including substantial forestland. In 1990. The land was later regularized and leased out to the company on 11 April 1994 by the Himachal Pradesh State Government. 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. A noted environmentalist and lawyer M.C. Mehta filed a PIL on the issue. The Court noted that large area of the bank of river Beas which was part of the protected forest had been given on a lease purely for commercial purposes to the Motel and therefore, the Himachal Pradesh government committed a patent breach of public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management.
Justice Kuldip Singh writing for himself and Justice S. Saghir Ahmed opined that “The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. …. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea- shore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.”
The court also opined that in the absence of any legislation, “the
executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use”.
In M. I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, AIR 1999 SC 2468 case, the Court held that the Lucknow Mahanagar Palika (Municipal authority) by allowing an underground shopping complex to come up below a public park violated the doctrine of Public Trust and ordered the demolition of the structures and restoration of the park. Writ of mandamus was issued to the Mahapalika to restore back the park in its original position within a period of three months from the date of the judgment and till that was done, to take adequate safety measures and to provide necessary safeguard and protection to the public, users of the park.
In Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustee, Port of Mumbai, (2002) 3 SCC 214 case, the Supreme Court of India held that the State’s actions and the actions of its agencies/instrumentalities must be for the public good, achieving the objects for which they exist and should not be arbitrary or capricious. In the field of contracts, the State and its instrumentalities should design their activities in a manner which would ensure competition and non-discrimination. They can augment their resources but the object should be to serve the public cause and to do public good by resorting to fair and reasonable methods.
In Re : Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice S. H. Kapadia, Justice D. K. Jain, Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Ranjan Gogoi, held that “As far as ‘trusteeship’ is concerned, there is no cavil that the State holds all natural resources as a trustee of the public and must deal with them in a manner that is consistent with the nature of such a trust.”
Conclusion:
From the above discussions on the doctrine and various case laws, it is evident that the state is not the owner of the natural resources but a trustee who holds fiduciary relationship with the people. The Public Trust Doctrine may provide the means for increasing the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment laws.
Previous Topic: Polluter Pays Principle
Next Topic: Principle of Equity and Equality