Practice free →
HomeLLMLawEnvironmental Law › The doctrine of ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC TRUST was r…

The doctrine of ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC TRUST was recognised by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388. According to this doctrine:

Acertain natural resources (water, air, sea, sea-shore, forests, ecologically fragile lands) are HELD BY THE STATE AS TRUSTEE for the use of the GENERAL PUBLIC and cannot be alienated for private commercial use
Ball natural resources are State property to be sold for revenue (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388) (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388) (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388)
Cnatural resources have no legal status under Indian law (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388) (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388) (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388)
Dprivate persons own natural resources by virtue of long possession (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388) (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388) (cf. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388)
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: A. certain natural resources (water, air, sea, sea-shore, forests, ecologically fragile lands) are HELD BY THE STATE AS TRUSTEE for the use of the GENERAL PUBLIC and cannot be alienated for private commercial use
1. The Public Trust Doctrine, originally from English common law and codified by the US Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, was applied in India by M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997). 2. The Court held: '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.' 3. Categories of resources subject to Public Trust: (i) running waters; (ii) air; (iii) sea and sea-shore; (iv) forests and ecologically fragile lands. 4. The trustee duty is enforceable by judicial review. 5. Reaffirmed in: Th. Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation (1999); Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. (2006); Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. RIL (2010). 6. Hence option B is correct. _Source: EPA 1986 / Constitution / International Conventions — M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388_
Solve this in the app — LLM practice & 24k+ MCQs →
Related questions