Holding

Futala Tank, being a man‑made waterbody constructed for drinking and irrigation, does not fall within the definition of ‘wetland’ under rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules, and therefore the restrictions of rule 4 do not apply, although the spirit of the rules and the public‑trust doctrine must be respected.

Summary

The Swacch Association filed a public‑interest litigation alleging that Futala Tank in Nagpur was a wetland and that several constructions – a musical fountain, a viewer’s gallery, a parking plaza and an artificial banyan tree – were permanent structures violating the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017. The High Court held that, although the tank was listed in the National Wetland Inventory, it was a man‑made waterbody created for drinking and irrigation and therefore did not fall within the definition of “wetland” under rule 2(1)(g). The High Court nevertheless directed the authorities to respect the spirit of rule 4(2)(vi) and avoid permanent constructions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the historical facts, the statutory definition, and the applicability of the public‑trust doctrine and precautionary principle. It affirmed that Futala Tank is excluded from the statutory definition of wetland and that rule 4’s prohibitions do not apply stricto sensu, though the court endorsed the High Court’s directions to preserve the lake’s ecological balance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The question whether Futala Tank qualifies as a ‘wetland’ under rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017.
The applicability of rule 4(2)(vi) prohibiting permanent constructions in wetlands to the structures at Futala Tank.
Whether the public‑trust doctrine and precautionary principle impose additional obligations despite the tank’s exclusion from the statutory definition.

Legislation cited

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. 23, s. 25, s. 3
Societies Registration Act, 1860

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the Futala Tank classifies within the meaning and definition of r.2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017; The kind and nature of the constructions in and around the Futala Tank. Headnotes† Wetlands (Conservation 2017 – r.2(1)(g) – ‘Wetland’ – Whether the Futala Tank classifies within the meaning and definition of r.2(1)(g): Held: Futala Lake is not classifiable within the statutory definition of ‘wetland’ in r.2(1)(g) – The lake is a man-made waterbody

Subjects

Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017WetlandsFutala LakeFutala TankMan-made waterbodyIrrigation purposeHuman made waterbodiesWaterbedWaterbodiesPrecautionary principleDoctrine of public trustPermanent nature within the lake

Judgment

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 531 : 2025 INSC 1199

Swacch Association, Nagpur
v.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 12521 of 2025)
07 October 2025
[B.R. Gavai, CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Futala Tank classifies within the meaning and definition
of r.2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules,
2017; The kind and nature of the constructions in and around
the Futala Tank.

Headnotes†
Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017 –
r.2(1)(g) – ‘Wetland’ – Whether the Futala Tank classifies within
the meaning and definition of r.2(1)(g):
Held: Futala Lake is not classifiable within the statutory definition
of ‘wetland’ in r.2(1)(g) – The lake is a man-made waterbody
constructed for drinking water and for irrigation purpose – The
definition excludes human made waterbodies and those constructed
inter alia for irrigation purposes, as rightly held by High Court in the
impugned judgment– r.4 of the 2017 Rules which provides for the
restrictions of activity in the ‘wetland’ would not apply stricto sensu
to Futala Tank as the Lake falls outside the statutory definition –
High Court gave certain directions including that the respondent
shall ensure that the spirit of r.4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules will be
respected and structure of any permanent nature within the lake
would not be undertaken; the activities nearby the Futala Lake
does not lead to any damage to the Lake and further that the entire
waterbed along with its recreational and beautification structures
are kept clean and properly maintained – Applying the restrictions
and rigours of r.4 of 2017 Rules and in ensuring its relevance to
the waterbodies or wetlands, even if they are not covered within
the statutory definition, there is a recognition of precautionary
principle and doctrine of public trust, which is a judicial foresight
and a salutary approach – Various directions issued by the High

* Author
532 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court in the impugned judgment, are only an extension of such
foresighted thought acted up – No error in the judgment of the
High Court. [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 10]

Case Law Cited
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 12 :
(1997) 1 SCC 388; M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India [2009] 6
SCR 1178 : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 230 of 2001 – referred to.

List of Acts
Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017; Wetlands
(Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010; Construction
and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016; Manufacture,
Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989; Rules
for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous
Micro-organisms Genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989;
Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary
Movement) Rules, 2008; E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016;
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010;
Societies Registration Act, 1860; Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950;
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

List of Keywords
Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules,
2017; ‘Wetlands’; Futala Lake; Futala Tank; Man-made waterbody;
Irrigation purpose; Human made waterbodies; Waterbed;
Waterbodies; Precautionary principle; Doctrine of public trust;
Permanent nature within the lake.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12521 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in PIL No. 4 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anindita Mitra, Ms. Trisha
Chandran, Ms. Shreya Nair, Satyajit Sarna.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 533

Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.,
Shekhar Naphade, S. K. Mishra, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Ms. Sonali Jain, Sr. Advs., Siddharth
Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma,
Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey,
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Gagan Sanghi, Ms. Salonee
Paranjape, Karan Bishnoi, Mrs. A.s Jamuna, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Yogeeta Chaudhary, Abhinav K.
Mutyalwar, Siddharth Gautam, Ananya Thapliyal, Sachin Singh,
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Pratik Kumar Singh, Puneet Sharma, Gharote
Anurag A, Varad Kilor, Ms. Viddusshi, Rohit Anil Rathi, Ms. Niharika
Singh, Yashas Rk, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Astha Singh,
Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mukesh Verma, Mrs. Vatsala Tripathi,
Shashank Singh, Krishna Prakash Dubey, Pawan Kumar Shukla,
Milind Modi, Ms. Sonali Jain.
Advs. for the Intervenors:
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Rajat Joseph, Hrishikesh S. Chitaley,
Kaustubh D. Kadasne.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

N.V. Anjaria, J.

Leave granted.
1.1 Heard learned Senor Advocate Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan
for the appellant, learned Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta for
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8, learned Additional Solicitor General
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati for respondent Nos.8 and 9, learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Shekhar Naphade for respondent No.3, learned
Advocate# Mr. S.K. Mishra for respondent No.4, learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu for respondent No.5, learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi for respondent No.6, learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul for the intervenor, along
with the respective assisting learned advocates, at length.
2. The appellant-original petitioner addresses challenge to the judgement
and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the
# Ed. Note: “learned Advocate” instead of “learned Senior Advocate” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
534 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

High Court of Bombay1, whereby the High Court disposed of the
Public Interest Litigation No.4 of 2023 with certain observations and
directions, declining to grant prayers made in the petition.
2.1 The petition before the High Court was filed by the appellant-
Swacch Association-an organisation registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 as also under the Bombay Public
Trusts Act, 1950, claiming to be a body engaged in the green
practices and for promoting a healthy environment, in which a
grievance was raised in respect of certain constructions and
recreational activities set up in and around the Futala Lake2 in
Nagpur City, Maharashtra. The case put forward by the appellant
was that the said Futala Lake was a ‘wetland’ and it ought to be
protected for its environmental value and that the constructions
which were made thereat were of permanent nature.
2.2 What was prayed was to declare that the installation of Musical
Fountain and machinery thereof inside the body of the Futala
Lake was illegal and against the public trust principle. It was
further prayed to declare that the construction of the Viewer’s
Gallery on the bank of the Futala Tank was also illegal. The
third prayer was for issuance of direction against respondent
No.5-Nagpur Metropolitan Regional Development Authority to
remove the Musical Fountain and the related set-up installed
inside the body of the Futala Tank and to restore the Tank to
its original state.
2.3 The fourth prayer was advanced for directing respondent
No.3-Municipal Corporation Nagpur and respondent No.4-
Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation to demolish the viewer’s
gallery. Yet another prayer was made to declare that the
construction of the Parking Plaza on the land bearing Khasra
No.13/3 at Mauje Futala was contrary to the zone shown in the
sanctioned development plan for Nagpur. Also, a direction was
sought against respondent Nos.3 and 4 to demolish the building
which was under construction on the said land.
2.4 Interim prayers were made seeking a restraint order against
respondent No.4 from carrying out further construction of the

1 Hereinafter, “High Court”.
2 Hereinafter, “Futala Tank”
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 535

Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Parking Plaza as also against respondent No.5 from holding
of Musical Fountain Show, Laser Show and Multimedia Show
at the Futala Tank.
3. The case of the appellant before the High Court and further
emphasised before this Court was inter alia that in the guise of
beautification and in the name of recreational activities for the people,
the respondent authorities had proceeded to construct and erect the
Viewer’s Gallery on the bank of the Futala Tank and had installed
Musical Fountain in the body of the Tank. It was the grievance of
the appellant that the construction of nine storeyed building near
the Futala Tank was proposed for parking, food court, etc. and that
erected there was a Floating Restaurant, artificial Banyan Tree and
a Musical Fountain inside the body of the lake.
3.1 It was contended that the Futala Lake was identified as ‘wetland’
in the map of Wetland Atlas of Maharashtra which was part of
National Wetland Atlas. It was further claimed that the Lake is
a ‘wetland’ within the meaning of Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands
(Conservation & Management) Rules, 20173, therefore the
restrictions contained in Rule 4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules would
apply, more particularly in the present case the prohibition
contained in Rule 4(1)(iv) would operate.
3.2 It was stated that in the National Wetland Inventory as carried
out by Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad under the project
“National Wetland Inventory and Assessment (“NWIA)” funded
by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India, the Futala Tank was mentioned amongst
2,01,503 wetlands in the inventory list. The definition of wetland
provided in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules has been wrongly
construed by the High Court.
3.3 It was the case of the appellant that not only those prohibitions
were given a go-by in creating recreational and beautification
projects at the lake site, but the Construction Rules and the
norm of minimum Fifteen meters’ distance for any construction
from a waterbody were also violated. It was further contended
that in the sanctioned development project of Nagpur City, the

3 Hereinafter, “2017 Rules”.
536 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

proposed construction between the Futala Tank and eighteen
metres road was permissible, however the construction was
found to be on the Pali (boundary wall) of the Futala Tank.
3.4 It was next contended that the setting up of artificial Banyan
Tree was a permanent construction inside the waterbody which
was not only in breach of the prohibitory rules, but also it has a
damaging effect to the Lake. It was the case that a waterbody of
Futala Tank- a ‘wetland’, was exploited for commercial purposes
without caring for adverse ecological effect.
3.5 It was pleaded that under Article 21 of the Constitution, right to
life has been given an expanded interpretation by this Court to
include the right to clean air, clear water, clean environment,
hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance. Article 48-A of
the Constitution lays down the duty of the State to protect,
safeguard and improve the environment and safeguard forest
and wildlife, in addition to Article 51-A (g) of the Constitution
which casts a duty on every citizen to protect the natural
environment including lakes and rivers.
3.6 The appellant then referred to the principle of public trust
enunciated by this Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath &
Ors.4 It was submitted that the construction of Viewer’s Gallery
on the Futala Tank would change the nature of the waterbody
as well as its use, to take away its environmental value. It was
submitted that the activities permitted in and around the tank
run contrary to the doctrine of public trust.
3.7 It may be mentioned that the High Court by a reasoned order
dated 05.07.2023 refused to grant any interim relief to the
appellant. The prima facie finding was recorded in the interim
order that the Futala Lake does not fall within the purview of
Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. However, the High Court observed
that since the lake was mentioned as ‘wetland’ in the National
Wetland Inventory and Assessment (NWIA), prohibition in
Rule 4(2)(vi) of 2017 Rules deserves to be treated as relevant
to protect the lake.
4. Respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation Nagpur, respondent No.4-
Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation and respondent No.5- Nagpur

4 (1997) 1 SCC 388
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 537

Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Metropolitan Regional Development Authority filed their replies and
placed materials before this Court also in the present proceedings
to refute the case and allegations of the appellant.
5. The following facts which are not disputed, go to show that the
competent authorities granted various permissions for the projects
and recreational facilities at Futala Lake, which were in accordance
with the Rules and the norms.
(a) For Viewer’s Gallery, plans were submitted on 29.08.2019
which were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation Nagpur
on 18.10.2019. The Heritage Committee granted sanction on
29.09.2018 and the revised plan was sanctioned on 15.06.2021,
in accordance with which the work was executed.
(b) The Parking Plaza plan was sanctioned by the Town Planning
Department, Nagpur Municipal Corporation on 01.09.2022.
The Heritage Committee also approved the parking plaza
construction. It was thereafter that the Environmental
Management Plan and the Dam Stability reports were submitted.
The Heritage Committee again sanctioned the proposal on
30.06.2022.
(c) The Floating Stage-cum-Floating Banquet was permitted as per
the No Objection Certificate (NOC) received on the different
occasions on 07.03.2022, 21.03.2022 and 08.04.2022 from
the Public Works Department. Similarly, NOCs were received
from Group Captain, Commanding Officer, HQ Maintenance
Command (Unit) on 22.09.2022, from District Deputy
Commissioner of Animal Husbandry, Nagpur on 28.04.2022,
from Assistant Commissioner, Fisheries Department, Nagpur
on 23.05.2022, from the authority of the Heritage Conservation
Committee, Nagpur on 20.07.2022, from Nagpur Municipal
Commissioner, Nagpur on 10.05.2022 and also from the
City Police Commissioner, Nagpur on 03.12.2022. Thus, the
competent authorities have sanctioned the project.
(d) The artificial Banyan Tree is a part of Multimedia Show for
which also admittedly, NOC was obtained from the authorities
mentioned above, including the local authority.
(e) In respect of alleged utilization of land bearing Number 13/3
Mauje Futala, the Forest Department through Office of the
538 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Deputy Conservation Officer, Nagpur by communication dated
01.03.2024, stated that the said land was not a forest land. It
was occupied by Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural University
which used to grow saplings thereon.
(f) The Parking Plaza is not set up in the agricultural zone. It was
given out that as per the applicable Regulation, the development
of parking plaza upto 0.2 FSI of the gross plot area is permissible
and that the competent authority has sanctioned the building
plan accordingly in compliance with the norm.
(g) By Notification dated 15.10.2003, the State Government
sanctioned the ‘Regulations for conservation of building,
artefacts, structures, areas and precincts of historic and cultural
significance’. The Futala Tank is mentioned at serial number
132 in the Schedule of these Regulations which is treated as
Grade I heritage structure. In that view, the necessary sanction
of the Heritage Conservation Committee was obtained before
securing the permission for development of Futala Tank and
Parking Plaza etc. which was granted by the Heritage Committee
after obtaining a compliance report.
5.1 It is to be stated that the abovementioned permissions and
No Objection Certificates granted by the competent authorities
concerned, for the recreational facilities and beautification project
set up at the place of the Lake, have not been challenged by the
public interest litigant-appellant at any stage of the proceedings.
5.1.1 The respondents, including respondent No.4 have stated
that in order to ensure the protection of ecological balance,
compensatory afforestation was carried out in respect of
the trees which were required to be removed for executing
the directions at certain places. The trees which were
removed were compensated by planting other trees at
the location given by the Municipal Corporation. It was
claimed that the Floating Musical Fountain Show resulted
into improvement of quality of water in the Futala Tank
and its aquatic life is enhanced. It was further stated that
the Viewer’s Gallery and the Parking Plaza are in the
dry zone. The Viewer’s Gallery has worked as protection
against dumping of waste and encroachment.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 539

Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

5.2 Now, before proceeding further, it is warranting for the court
to conclude on the kind and nature of the constructions in and
around the Futala Tank, which are subject matter of grievance.
The work of Viewer’s Gallery has been executed as per the
approved plan and that it was shown that the same is constructed
on the Bund road adjacent to the precinct of the Futala Tank,
which does not disturb the existing precinct. It is at a height
of 4 metres above the dam level, which is permissible under
the guidelines. The Gallery does not touch the embarkment
structure. It could not be demonstrated that the Viewer’s Galley
in its existence has any adverse ecological effect.
5.2.1 No constructions are carried out in the catchment area
of the Lake. The construction of the floating restaurant,
banquet and the platform could not be categorized as
permanent construction. It was given out that platform
design was reviewed and vetted by IIT, Mumbai.
5.2.2 What was harped in particular on behalf of the appellant
is that the Banyan Tree artificially created for recreational
purpose is put up inside the Futala Lake and that
it is a permanent structure causing serious harm to
the waterbody. It was also claimed that 7000 tonnes
of concrete stones were dumped inside the tank for
constructing the screen of the Banyan Tree.
5.2.3 As per the factual details placed by the respondents, the
said allegation was erroneous and exaggerated, merely
based on the newspaper clipping. It was stated that since
the Banyan Tree is to be used as the screen for the 3D
show, it is accordingly erected using the Kerb stones
weighing 350 tonnes in the total area placed inside the
structure so that there is no lateral movement and the
wind load is countered.
5.2.4 The Banyan Tree size is 25m x 10=250 square meters
which is just 0.51% of the total area of the tank.
Importantly, the structure of Banyan Tree is not secured
by any permanent foundation. Nor it is affixed on the
bed of the tank. Therefore, the structure of banyan tree
cannot be termed as permanent structure. The working of
540 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the said Banyan Tree structure was executed as per the
design proof-checked by Visvesvaraya National Institute
of Technology, Nagpur.
5.2.5 When the Banyan Tree is not embedded on the bed of
the lake and when there is no foundational support laid
for it inside the tank and when it is removable at any time,
this Court is inclined to accept and hold that the erection
of Banyan Tree could not be regarded as a permanent
structure. The structure possesses all the characteristics
of a temporary structure on account of its very nature of
built and removability, the existence thereof cannot be
viewed as perpetual.
5.3 Next examining the central issue as to whether the Futala Tank
classifies within the meaning and definition of Rule# 2(1)(g) of
the 2017 Rules, the Futala Tank, also known as Telangkhedi
Tank, a waterbody situated on the Western side of Nagpur City,
was constructed in the year 1799 by Shri Gyanoji Bhosale. The
lake covers, along with its catchment to be about 200 hectares.
It was not a natural water reservoir, but constructed by the then
Ruler, to cater to the irrigational needs. Undoubtedly, the lake
is a man-made lake for the city of Nagpur.
5.3.1 When the definition of ‘wetland’ in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017
Rules is looked at, the Futala Lake is not classifiable within
the statutory definition. The 2017 Rules are framed by the
Parliament in exercise of powers conferred by Section 25
read with Sub-Section (1) and clause (v) of Sub-Section
(2) and Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 and Section 23 of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in supersession of
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.
5.3.2 Rule 2 (1)(g) of the Rules contained the definition of
‘Wetland’ which is as under,
“ 2(1) …
(g) ‘wetland’ means an area of marsh, fen
peatland, or water; whether natural or artificial,
permanent or temporary, with water that is static
or flowing, fresh, brackish or last, including areas

# Ed. Note: “Rule” instead of “Section” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 541

Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

of marine water the depth of which at low tide
does not exceed six meters, but does not include
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.”
5.3.3 It could be seen from the aforesaid definition of ‘wetland’
that the statutory concept of wetland does not include river
channels, water body and tanks which are specifically
constructed for drinking water purposes and the structural
construction is for aquaculture, salt production, recreation
and irrigation purposes. Such exclusions stand outside
the corners of the definition. Rule# 2(1)(i) is the definition
of “wise use of wetlands” to mean the maintenance of the
ecological character, achieved through implementation of
eco-system approach within the context of sustainable
development.
5.3.4 The historical facts given out in the reply of respondent
No.4 filed in the present proceedings, goes to show clearly
that the lake is a man-made waterbody constructed for
drinking water and for irrigation purpose. It is stated that
as per the available record of Futala Tank at the Nagpur
Museum of Archaeological Department of Nagpur popularly
known as Ajab bungalow, ‘Originally the reservoir was
constructed to create a source of water in the Telankhedi
precinct, which was recreational garden for the bhonsale’s
and site for their prestigious guest house fordignitaries.
This catchment lake was formed by dammning the Futala
stream which collects water from the slope of seminary hills
and starky hillock. Retaining wall forms the eastern edge
of the lake, and it was a broad low parapet and circular
bastions. Futala stream which is one of the important
tributaries of Nag River in the City, became significant
due to holding of water in the Futala Tank.’
5.3.5 The Futala Tank is thus an arrangement in the lower
promenade in the centre. There is a well in which water

# Ed. Note: “Rule” instead of “Section” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
542 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is collected through weep holes inside the stone masonry.
The water is supplied by gravity force through pipes. It
was stated that there is a valve for operation. These
aspects go to show that the Futala Lake was made for
irrigational purpose. It was stated that the area of the
Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth which is for
agricultural and research purpose falls on the Eastern
side, that is, on other side of the road.
5.4 In view of this Court, the Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody
and it does not fall within the meaning of the statutory definition
and is not a ‘wetland’ as defined in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017
Rules. The definition excludes human-made waterbodies and
those constructed inter alia for irrigation purposes. The High
Court was justified in recording finding in the interim order
dated 05.07.2023 and confirming the same while passing the
impugned final judgment and order.
5.5 It is to be noted that Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules which provides
for the restrictions of activity in the ‘wetland’ would not apply
stricto sensu to Futala Tank as the Lake falls outside the statutory
definition. The said Rule is extracted hereinbelow,
“4. Restrictions of activities in wetlands.—(1)
The wetlands shall be conserved and managed
in accordance with the principle of ‘wise use’ as
determined by the Wetlands Authority.
(2) The following activities shall be prohibited within
the wetlands, namely,-
(i) conversion for non-wetland uses including
encroachment of any kind;
(ii) setting up of any industry and expansion of existing
industries;
(iii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal
of construction and demolition waste covered under
the Construction and Demolition Waste Management
Rules, 2016; hazardous substances covered under
the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous
Chemical Rules, 1989 or the Rules for Manufacture,
Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 543

Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

organisms Genetically engineered organisms or
cells, 1989 or the Hazardous Wastes (Management,
Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2008; electronic waste covered under the E-Waste
(Management) Rules, 2016;
(iv) solid waste dumping;
(v) discharge of untreated wastes and effluents from
industries, cities, towns, villages and other human
settlements;
(vi) any construction of a permanent nature except
for boat jetties within fifty metres from the mean
high flood level observed in the past ten years
calculated from the date of commencement of
these rules; and,
(vii) poaching.”
(Emphasis supplied)

5.6 It is to be noticed however, that one of the prohibited activities
in Rule 4 (2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules is construction of permanent
nature. In M.K. Balakrishnan vs. Union of India which was
Writ Petition (Civil) No.230 of 2001 by order dated 08.02.2017,
this Court dealt with the subject matter of ‘wetland’ identification
and directed as under,
“We direct the application of the principles of Rule
4 of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management)
Rules, 2010 to these 2,01,503 wetlands that have
been mapped by the Union of India. The Union
of India will identify and inventorize all these
2,01,503 wetlands with the assistance of the State
Governments and will also communicate our order
to the State Governments which will also bind
the State Governments to the effect that these
identified 2,01,503 wetlands are subject to the
principles of Rule 4 of the Wetlands (Conservation
and Management) Rules, 2010”
5.6.1 In the subsequent order dated 04.10.2017, the aforesaid
direction was reiterated stating that in terms of the
544 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

previous orders dated 08.02.2017, a total of 2,01,503
wetlands that have been mapped by the Union of
India should continue to remain protected on the same
principle as were formulated in Rule 4 of the Wetlands
(Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010.
5.6.2 In view of above, the High Court in its impugned judgment
correctly observed in paragraph 9,
“Notwithstanding the aforesaid position on
record, we may refer to the Office Memorandum
dated 8-3-2022 issued by the Ministry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change
of the Government of India. In the light of the
order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
4-10-2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.230 of 2001
[M.K. Balakrishnan and others Versus Union of
India and others], it was clarified/reiterated by
the said Office Memorandum that the wetlands
identified as per NWIA 2011 should be protected
as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 2017.”
5.6.3 The following further pertinent observations made by the
High Court in the same paragraph,
“……even if Futala Lake is not a declared
wetland by the State Wetland Authority, the
restrictions imposed vide Office Memorandum
dated 8-3-2022 ought to apply to the said Lake.
It is in this backdrop that the respondents had
been directed to ensure that the spirit behind
enacting the Rules of 2017 is not violated by
undertaking any construction of a permanent
nature within Futala Lake. We are inclined to
continue this direction with a view to protect and
preserve Futala Lake from any construction of
permanent nature being undertaken therein.”
5.7 It is to be appreciated that the High Court gave certain directions
including that the respondent shall ensure that the spirit of
Rule 4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules will be respected and structure of
any permanent nature within the lake would not be undertaken.
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 545

Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The High Court further directed the respondents including the
Municipal Corporation Nagpur to ensure that the activities nearby
the Futala Lake does not lead to any damage to the Lake and
further that the entire waterbed along with its recreational and
beautification structures are kept clean and properly maintained.
5.8 It is only proper that this pristine waterbody in the city of Nagpur
continues to exist with twin objectives, namely to bring public
good for the citizens of the city of Nagpur and also contribute to
maintain environment friendliness without causing any ecological
damage, both to the waterbody itself as well as to the quality of
aqua life. This Court reiterates the directions as well as hope
expressed by the High Court.
5.9 Applying the restrictions and rigours of Rule 4 of 2017 Rules
and in ensuring its relevance to the waterbodies or wetlands,
even if they are not covered within the statutory definition, there
is a recognition of precautionary principle and doctrine of public
trust, which is a judicial foresight and a salutary approach.
The various directions issued by the High Court as referred
to above, in the impugned judgment, are only an extension of
such foresighted thought acted upon.
6. The judicial wisdom has evolved the doctrine of public trust. This
doctrine has the intake of Articles 48-A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution,
which in its ultimate analysis aims to preserve and conserve the
natural resources like air, water, objects of nature to be applied for
public good and collective societal interest and the natural bodies
of various kinds on the earth. The concept is that the public has a
right to expect certain natural things including waterbodies, wetlands
and natural lands like forests to retain their natural ingredients, and
further that the idea of maintenance of their original characteristics
finds way into the law of the land.
6.1 Propounded in M.C. Mehta (supra) and several subsequent
decisions of this Court, the public trust doctrine is a salutary
principle. The Supreme Court observed in M.C. Mehta (supra)
that,
“The notion that the public has a right to expect
certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural
characteristic is finding its way into the law of the
land. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal
546 [2025] 10 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

theory known as the “Doctrine of the Public Trust”.
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……”
(Para 23)

6.2 In the following observation, there lies a dictum that upholding
of the public trust principle is the duty of the governmental
authorities dealing with the natural resources,
“25. 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.
(Para 25)

6.2.1 It was then stated,
“Three types of restrictions on governmental
authority are often thought to be imposed by
the public trust : first, the property subject to
the trust must not only be used for a public
purpose, but it must be held available for use
by the general public; second, the property may
not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent;
and third the property must be maintained for
particular types of uses.”
(Para 25)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 547

Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

7. The public trust doctrine need not be limited to the natural bodies
such as waterbodies, wetlands, lakes, rivers which are nature’s gifts,
but holds true also with respect to the man-made or artificially created
waterbodies as well as the things and the objects from nature in
order to promote ecology and environment. All those man-made or
artificial bodies created from natural resources which contribute to
the environment and are eco-friendly in their existence, have to be
subject to the doctrine of public trust.
8. The human activities which are in tune with the nature and ecology
or which are designed for creating healthy environment have to be
guided and protected by legal measures. It calls for the responsibility
not only on the part of the citizens, but the authorities also are equally
enjoined to ensure that the doctrine of public trust in this sphere is
applied and furthered.
9. The public trust doctrine would thus extend in respect of even
man-made or artificially created natural objects, waterbodies, lakes,
wetlands, etc. which are drawn and created from the nature or natural
resources. It would in ultimate analysis pave way to extend to ensure
the availment of right of healthy environment and ecological balance
recognized for the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. At
the same time promoting sustainable development for public good
is not alien to it.
10. The judgment and order of the High Court and the directions issued
therein are a balancing exercise. It is eminently proper and legal,
booking no error.
11. The present appeal is hereby dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, all interlocutory applications, as
may be pending would not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.

Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey