Doctrine of the Public Trust - Indian Laws - General

Doctrine of the Public Trust In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath - 1996 (12) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT , this Court while considering the doctrine of public trust which extends to natural resources observed as under: (SCC pp. 407-08 413, paras 24-25 34) 24 . The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the Doctrine of the Public Trust . It was founded on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Our contemporary concern about the environment bear a very close conceptual relationship to this legal doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources were either owned by no one (res nullius) or by everyone in common (res communis). 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 interests 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. Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law , University of Michigan--proponent of he Modern Public Trust Doctrine--in an erudite Article Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law : Effective Judicial Intervention , Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, Part 1, p. 473, has given the historical background of the Public Trust Doctrine as under: The source of modern public trust law is found in a concept that received much attention in Roman and English law --the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and the seashore. That history has been given considerable attention in the legal literature and need not be repeated in detail here. But two points should be emphasised. First, certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property used for those purposes was distinguished from general public property which the sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it was understood that in certain common properties-- such as the seashore, highways and running water-- perpetual use was dedicated to the public , it has never been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to prevent infringement of those interests. Although the State apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available that public rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant government. 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. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority: 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. ** * 34 . Our legal system--based on English common law --includes the Public Trust Doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. 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 seashore, 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. JAYANT AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.- 2020 (12) TMI 1237 - SUPREME COURT