1. Challenge to constructions and recreational activities in a man-made lake — Claim of wetland status under Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017 — Alleged illegal permanent constructions. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1783
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, CJI, K. Vinod Chandran, N.V. Anjaria, J.
Swacch Association, Nagpur – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12521 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1420 of 2024)
Decided On : 07-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Mr. Satyajit Sarna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Farah Hashmi, Adv. Ms. Salonee Paranjape, Adv. Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv. Mrs. A.s Jamuna, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. S. K. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Ms. Yogeeta Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shreevardhan Dhoot, Adv. Mr. Parth Johri, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Agrahari, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gharote Anurag A, AOR Ms. Viddusshi, Adv. Ms. Kalyani Dilip Bhide, Adv. Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Ashmit Raj, Adv. Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, AOR Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashas Rk, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mrs. Vatsala Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Krishna Prakash Dubey, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Milind Modi, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh D. Kadasne, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Mr. Satyajit Sarna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. Farah Hashmi, Adv. Ms. Salonee Paranjape, Adv. Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv. Mrs. A.s Jamuna, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. S. K. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Ms. Yogeeta Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shreevardhan Dhoot, Adv. Mr. Parth Johri, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Agrahari, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gharote Anurag A, AOR Ms. Viddusshi, Adv. Ms. Kalyani Dilip Bhide, Adv. Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Ashmit Raj, Adv. Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, AOR Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashas Rk, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mrs. Vatsala Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Krishna Prakash Dubey, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Milind Modi, Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh D. Kadasne, Adv.
The Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody, not classified as a wetland under the 2017 rules, thus constructions around it are not in violation of those regulations.
Headnote:(A) Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 - Rule 2(1)(g) - Public Trust Doctrine - The appeal contested the legality of constructions and activities around Futala Lake, alleged to violate environmental regulations and the public trust principle. The Court found the Futala Lake is a man-made entity and not classified as a 'wetland' under the Rules. The High Court's observations and directions to ensure protection of the lake and uphold public trust principles were upheld. (Paras 5.3 and 6-9)
(B) Environmental Law - Public Interest Litigation is designed to safeguard public interest rather than individual assertion, necessitating judicial considerations for environmental protection. (Paras 3.1 and 6.1)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged constructions in Futala Lake, alleging they breach environmental regulations. Key issues included the classification of the lake and the legality of ongoing projects.
Findings of Court:
The Futala Lake did not fall under the 'wetland' definition, upholding the High Court's decision and affirming the public trust doctrine's applicability.
Issues: The classification of Futala Lake under environmental regulations and the legality of the construction projects.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed the definition of 'wetland' under the 2017 Rules, stating the Futala Lake is a man-made structure not subject to those regulations.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a man-made lake for irrigation constitutes a wetland under statutory rules — Legality of permanent constructions versus temporary recreational structures — Application of public trust doctrine. (Para 3 )
3. The public trust doctrine extends to man-made water bodies created from natural resources to ensure ecological balance and the right to a healthy environment under Article 21. (Para 7 , 9 )
4. Appeal dismissed — High Court directions to prevent permanent construction and maintain ecological balance in the waterbody upheld. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Does the public trust doctrine apply to artificially created water bodies?
Yes. The doctrine extends to man-made or artificially created water bodies drawn from natural resources to promote ecology and ensure the right to a healthy environment and ecological balance under Article 21. (Para 7 , 9 )
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 Senior 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 judgment and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay1[Hereinafter, “High Court”], 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[Hereinafter, “Futala Tank”] 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 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 th
