This post contains summaries of –

1. Shibani Ghosh, ‘Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Law’ in Shibani Ghosh (ed), Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles (Orient BlackSwan 2019) 230-270
2. Lovleen Bhullar,  Environmental Constitutionalism and Duties of Individuals in India, Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 34, Issue 3, November 2022, Pages 399–418

Public Trust Doctrine in India

The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is a significant principle in Indian environmental jurisprudence, adapted from common law traditions. At its core, the doctrine asserts that certain natural resources—such as air, water, forests, and the seashore—are of such great importance to the public that the State holds them in trust for the benefit of all citizens. These resources are not to be privatized or exploited arbitrarily, but preserved for public use and for future generations.

Origins and Constitutional Basis

The doctrine traces its roots to Roman law, where it was articulated that air, running water, the sea, and the seashore are common to all. Through English common law, this idea found its way into modern legal systems, including India’s. In India, PTD has been recognized as part of the evolving environmental jurisprudence, closely linked to constitutional provisions such as Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 48A (Directive Principle to protect environment), and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty to safeguard environment).

Judicial Recognition

The Indian judiciary has been pivotal in embedding PTD into environmental governance.

In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), the Supreme Court explicitly adopted the doctrine, ruling against private encroachment on the Beas River. The Court held that the State has a fiduciary duty to protect natural resources and cannot abdicate this responsibility through privatization or uncontrolled allocation. This case marked a watershed moment, bringing PTD to the forefront of Indian environmental law.

Later cases like M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu (1999) reinforced the doctrine by preventing the destruction of a historic public park, emphasizing that public resources cannot be alienated to serve private commercial interests. Similarly, the Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) applied PTD to regulate mining, underscoring the principle of intergenerational equity.

Scope and Application

The doctrine is not limited to water bodies or forests but extends to a broad range of environmental resources. The courts have applied PTD to urban commons, wetlands, and even cultural resources. Its scope aligns with the principle that the environment belongs not only to present citizens but also to future generations, thereby intersecting with the principle of sustainable development.

Critical Evaluation

While PTD has strengthened environmental protection in India, its application faces challenges. Firstly, there is tension between developmental needs and environmental conservation. Courts often intervene to halt projects harmful to ecological balance, but such interventions may be criticized for judicial overreach. Secondly, the doctrine lacks explicit statutory codification in India, relying primarily on judicial creativity. This creates inconsistency in its enforcement. Moreover, political and administrative willpower to implement PTD in practice often falls short, with environmental degradation continuing despite judicial pronouncements.

Conclusion

The Public Trust Doctrine has become a cornerstone of Indian environmental jurisprudence, establishing the State’s obligation to preserve common resources for the benefit of all. Its strength lies in constitutional backing and judicial expansion, but its effectiveness depends on consistent implementation, legislative support, and balancing ecological preservation with economic development. PTD reflects a shift from ownership-centric to stewardship-based environmental governance, embedding intergenerational justice at the heart of Indian law.

Environmental Constitutionalism and Duties of Individuals in India (eqac010)

Introduction

Lovleen Bhullar’s article, Environmental Constitutionalism and Duties of Individuals in India (2022), examines an often-overlooked aspect of environmental constitutionalism: the duties of individuals. While scholarship typically emphasizes environmental rights and State duties, this article focuses on Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution, which obligates citizens to “protect and improve the natural environment” and to show compassion for living creatures.

Historical Origins

The Indian Constitution, as originally enacted in 1950, did not include duties of citizens. These were inserted through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), in response to both internal and external factors. Domestically, the Emergency era emphasized balancing rights with duties. Externally, the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment influenced the inclusion of an environmental duty, echoing Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration, which recognized a responsibility to protect the environment for present and future generations.

Constitutional Design

Article 51A(g) stands alongside Article 48A, which enjoins the State to protect and improve the environment. Together, these provisions establish a constitutional framework where both State and citizens share responsibility. However, unlike enforceable rights, duties are framed broadly, creating ambiguity over their justiciability. Importantly, the judiciary has treated these duties not as symbolic aspirations, but as substantive guides for interpreting rights and obligations.

Judicial Engagement

The Indian judiciary has dynamically interpreted the environmental duty of individuals. Courts have:

• Linked it to Article 21 (Right to Life), thereby expanding the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.
• Used it to justify restrictions on other rights, such as freedom of trade or religion, where environmental protection is at stake.
• Recognized it as both a negative duty (not to pollute or degrade resources) and a positive duty (to actively preserve and safeguard natural resources).

Significant cases, such as Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) and MC Mehta series of cases, illustrate how courts rely on Article 51A(g) to balance development with ecological preservation. More recently, courts have expanded the scope of this duty to include responsibilities towards future generations and even the environment itself as a rights-holder.

Implementation and Enforcement

A major challenge is the non-enforceability of fundamental duties. Unlike Directive Principles, Article 51A lacks explicit mechanisms for enforcement. However, duties have been operationalized indirectly through environmental statutes like the Environment Protection Act (1986) and the Water and Air Pollution Acts. Citizens fulfill their constitutional duty by complying with statutory obligations. Judicial interpretation has further blurred the lines between aspirational duty and enforceable responsibility, treating Article 51A(g) as a normative standard guiding legislation and policy.

Critical Analysis

The article highlights both potential and limitations. On the one hand, citizen duties expand the scope of environmental constitutionalism by embedding environmental ethics into individual responsibility. They provide interpretive support for courts to strengthen environmental rights and justify environmental restrictions on other rights. On the other hand, without explicit enforcement mechanisms, these duties risk remaining symbolic. The challenge lies in ensuring awareness, education, and legislative frameworks that translate constitutional ideals into everyday practice.

Conclusion

The Indian model demonstrates a symbiotic relationship between rights and duties in environmental constitutionalism. Citizens are not passive beneficiaries of environmental rights but active participants with responsibilities. By linking individual duties with the right to life and intergenerational equity, Indian courts have given meaningful substance to Article 51A(g).

However, sustained legislative action and public participation are essential to make individual environmental duties a robust tool for environmental governance, rather than a purely rhetorical commitment.