Public Trust Doctrine:

1. The Jurisprudential Core: Res Communes

At its heart, the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) challenges the concept of private ownership over nature. It draws from the Roman law concept of Res Communes—things that are common to all mankind.

I interpret this not just as a property rule, but as a fundamental equity principle:

The State is NOT the Owner: The State does not hold absolute title to natural resources (air, water, forests, coastlines).
The State is a Trustee: The government holds these resources purely as a trustee (fiduciary).
The Public is the Beneficiary: The actual owners are the people—current and future generations.

2. The Constitutional Nexus (India)

In India, the Supreme Court imported this doctrine into our constitutional framework through the landmark case M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) (The Span Motel Case).

From a Human Rights perspective, we read PTD directly into Article 21 (Right to Life):

The Logic: You cannot enjoy the Right to Life without access to the biological prerequisites of life (clean air, drinkable water).
The Violation: Therefore, if the State allows a private entity (like a factory or a hotel) to destroy a river or forest for commercial gain, the State is committing a Breach of Trust. It is stealing from the public to pay the private sector.

3. Key Elements from a Rights Perspective

A. Intergenerational Equity

This is perhaps the most profound human rights aspect. The PTD asserts that we have a duty to pass the Earth to the next generation in no worse condition than we received it.

Legal Argument: Depleting an aquifer or polluting a river is an infringement on the rights of unborn generations. It is “temporal colonization.”

B. The Shield Against Privatization

In an era of neoliberalism, where water and forests are increasingly commodified, PTD acts as a legal shield.

Example: If a government tries to sell a public lake to a real estate developer, PTD allows citizens to approach the court and say, “You cannot sell what you do not own. You are only the caretaker.”

C. Affirmative Duty

It shifts the burden of proof. The State cannot just remain passive; it has an affirmative duty to protect the commons. Passive negligence (allowing pollution to happen) is as much a violation as active destruction.

4. Critical Analysis: The Gap Between Doctrine and Reality

While the doctrine looks beautiful on paper (and in SC judgments), as a student of law in action, I must critique its implementation:

Selective Application: Courts often apply PTD vigorously against small encroachers or specific industries (like tanneries) but are hesitant when it comes to massive “national interest” infrastructure projects that destroy ecosystems.
The “Public Purpose” Loophole: The State often bypasses PTD by claiming a project is for a “public purpose” (e.g., a dam), even if it displaces thousands of tribals. This pits one human right (development) against another (environment/livelihood).

Summary Table: Private Property vs. Public Trust

Feature	Private Property / Sovereign Domain	Public Trust Doctrine (Human Rights View)
Role of State	Absolute Owner / Ruler	Fiduciary / Caretaker
Nature of Resource	Commodifiable Asset	Res Extra Commercium (Not for sale)
Citizen’s Role	Passive Subject	Active Beneficiary
Objective	Economic Utility	Intergenerational Justice

The Public Trust Doctrine is the legal embodiment of the phrase: “We have not inherited this earth from our parents; we have borrowed it from our children.” It empowers the citizen to stand up to the State and demand accountability, transforming the environment from a piece of real estate into a shared human right.

Way Forward:

1. The Recent Challenges: “Rights in Regression”

As of late 2025, the greatest challenge is not merely enforcement but the legislative dilution of the very statutes that support the Public Trust Doctrine. We are witnessing a systematic attempt to contract the State’s fiduciary duties.

A. The “De-Classification” of Forests (FCA Amendment 2023)

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 has created a massive jurisprudential crisis.

The Challenge: By redefining “forests” to only include land recorded as such in government records, it effectively overturns the Supreme Court’s 1996 Godavarman judgment (which protected “deemed forests” based on the dictionary meaning).
Rights Implication: This removes protection from nearly 28% of India’s forest cover. For indigenous communities living in these “unrecorded” forests, their Right to Residence (Article 19) and Forest Rights (FRA 2006) are essentially nullified because the land is no longer legally “forest” requiring clearance procedures.

B. The “Green vs. Green” Conflict (M.K. Ranjitsinh Dilemma)

In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (April 2024), the Supreme Court faced a paradox: To save the Great Indian Bustard (critically endangered) from power lines, or to allow solar power infrastructure (essential for climate goals)?

The Conflict: The Court recognized a “Right to be free from adverse effects of Climate Change” (under Arts. 14 & 21). However, this created a tension between Biodiversity Rights and Climate Rights.
The Risk: There is a growing danger that “Climate Action” (like massive solar parks) will be used as a justification to bypass the Public Trust Doctrine in sensitive ecosystems.

C. The “Religious Use” Loophole (WPA Amendment 2022)

The amendment to Section 43 of the Wildlife Protection Act allows the transfer of elephants for “religious or any other purpose.”

Critique: This potentially commodifies a Schedule I animal. From a rights perspective, it treats living beings as “chattel” rather than rights-holders, contradicting the emerging “Animal Personhood” jurisprudence (Nagaraja case).

2. Recent Doctrinal Expansion: A Ray of Hope

While legislation has regressed, the Judiciary has expanded the doctrine.

Case in Point: Swacch Association v. State of Maharashtra (October 2025).
The Ruling: The Supreme Court extended the Public Trust Doctrine to artificial water bodies (like Futala Lake).
Significance: The State can no longer claim that man-made lakes are private property or purely administrative assets. They are now “held in trust,” meaning urban planning cannot destroy historic tanks/lakes for real estate.

3. Recommendations (From a Human Rights Lens)

If I were drafting a policy brief for the Ministry today, these would be my core recommendations:

Recommendation 1: Institutionalize “Climate Impact Assessments”

We must move beyond standard Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).

Proposal: Every large project must undergo a Climate Rights Audit. It should answer: Does this project, while perhaps “green” (like a dam), violate the local community’s resilience to climate change?
Legal Basis: The Ranjitsinh (2024) judgment necessitates this operational mechanism.

Recommendation 2: Harmonize the Definition of “Forest”

The conflict between the 2023 Act and the Godavarman judgment must be settled.

Proposal: A “Saving Clause” must be introduced, stating that Section 4 of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) overrides the narrow definition in the 2023 Amendment. If a tribe has a claim over land, it is forest, regardless of government records.

Recommendation 3: The “Co-Trustee” Model

We need to stop viewing the State as the sole trustee.

Proposal: Formalize Community Forest Resources (CFR) management committees as “Co-Trustees” with statutory power.
Why: The State has failed as a trustee (evidenced by the loss of 2.3 million hectares of tree cover since 2000). The community, whose life depends on the resource, is the natural fiduciary.

Summary of Position

The current legal landscape is volatile. We have a judiciary declaring “Climate Rights” and “Artificial Lake Protection” on one hand, and a legislature contracting “Forest Definitions” on the other. As human rights advocates, our job is to litigate in this gap—using the Public Trust Doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of the new amendments.