## Facts

- A public interest proceeding arose from reports that a private company operating a tourist resort on the Beas River undertook construction and riverbank works in an ecologically fragile area in the Kullu–Manali valley.
- The company constructed facilities after encroaching on approximately 27.12 bighas of land, including substantial forest land, and later obtained governmental regularization and a formal lease (executed in April 1994).
- Prior to the lease, the central environment ministry issued a “prior approval” (November 1993) under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for leasing adjoining forest land to the company.
- Following flood damage, the resort management carried out extensive “river training” activity (e.g., embankments, channelization, blocking flow upstream, and creating a new channel) intended to protect the resort and alter the river’s course.
- The court obtained affidavits from the parties and directed expert inspection through the Central Pollution Control Board, which confirmed large-scale works affecting the river’s natural flow and stability.
- The respondent minister denied personal wrongdoing but did not dispute that his family held nearly all shares in the motel company.

## Issues

1. Whether the State could lease forest/riverbank (and related river/floodplain) land for private commercial use consistent with the public trust doctrine.
2. Whether the ministry’s forest-clearance “prior approval” and the subsequent lease were lawful given the character of the land and environmental duties of the State.
3. Whether the company’s construction and river diversion works unlawfully impaired the Beas River’s natural flow and triggered restorative liability under the polluter pays principle.
4. Whether the public trust doctrine is part of Indian law and what fiduciary limits it places on governmental control of natural resources.

## Decision

- The court held that the public trust doctrine forms part of Indian law and that the State holds key natural resources (including running waters and riverbanks) in trust for public use.
- The court ruled that leasing the ecologically fragile river/forest area to a private entity for commercial exploitation violated the State’s trustee obligations.
- The court quashed the ministry’s prior approval and the 1994 lease.
- The court directed removal of unauthorized constructions/works and restoration of the Beas River area toward its natural condition.
- Applying the polluter pays principle, the court ordered the motel company to pay compensation geared to environmental restitution.

## Legal Principles

- The State’s control over certain natural resources is fiduciary, not proprietary; it cannot alienate public trust resources to private parties in a manner inconsistent with public use and environmental protection.
- Governmental approvals and leases affecting public trust resources are subject to close judicial scrutiny and may be invalidated when they permit substantial ecological harm or privatization of common resources.
- Environmental protection duties are linked to constitutional norms, including the right to life and the duty to protect and improve the natural environment.
- Under the polluter pays principle, an entity responsible for environmental harm can be required to bear the costs of restoring the damaged ecology, not merely to cease harmful conduct.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated governmental action that enabled private commercial use of fragile river/forest land, recognized the public trust doctrine as binding law, and required both restoration measures and polluter-pays compensation for river diversion and related environmental degradation.


M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 388 (India)