Pollution Threat to Planetary Existence: Why NGT Invoked Roman-Era 'Doctrine of Public Trust'
In a landmark ruling, India's National Green Tribunal (NGT) has invoked the ancient Roman 'Doctrine of Public Trust' to underscore the state's inescapable duty to safeguard natural resources for the public, citing pollution as an existential threat to the planet. Drawing from Roman law, English common law, and Supreme Court precedents, the tribunal emphasized that nature and its elements have been worshipped as 'Gods' since time immemorial, but human greed has led to their neglect.
NGT Dismisses Developer's Plea, Imposes Environmental Compensation
The NGT dismissed the plea of a real estate developer, Landmark Ventures, who was slapped with an environmental compensation of Rs 8.94 lakh for allegedly discharging untreated sewage into an adjacent plot and outside a housing society in Bhopal. A bench of Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and Expert Member Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi held that environmental obligations cannot be diluted by contracts, convenience, or delayed compliance.
The Doctrine of Public Trust asserts that vital natural resources such as rivers, seashores, forests, and air are held in trust by the State for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. Rooted in Roman law, which classified these resources as common property or unowned, and refined by English common law, this doctrine places a fiduciary duty on governments to protect them from privatisation or exploitation that compromises public interests.
Human Greed and the Degradation of Nature
Nature and its elements have been revered as 'Gods' since ancient times, with our forefathers understanding the importance of preserving the environment for their well-being and future generations. However, over time, human greed has caused us to forget this wisdom, treating nature as expendable at our expense and that of future generations.
The degradation of natural resources and various forms of pollution have a cascading effect on the environment, now a global issue that poses a threat to the very existence of our planet. Such degradation is the catalyst for drastic climatic changes and challenges we face today. The pollution and depletion of water resources, particularly groundwater, is a foreseeable threat to all living beings.
Key Findings and Legal Principles
The 'Doctrine of Public Trust' imposes three key restrictions: resources must remain accessible for public use, cannot be sold for private gain, and must be preserved in their natural state. Courts internationally have extended its scope to protect wetlands, riparian forests, and ecologically fragile lands, emphasizing the need for environmental preservation in light of modern ecological challenges.
This evolving interpretation reflects the doctrine's relevance in maintaining the balance between sustainable development and environmental conservation. The right to life inherently includes the right to enjoy a pollution-free environment, essential for the full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs the quality of life, a citizen has the right to recourse under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The court has recognized the concept of a 'right to healthy environment' as part of the 'right to life' under Article 21, thereby also recognizing the 'right to clean drinking water' as a fundamental right. Environmental rights, encompassing a group of collective rights, are now described as 'third generation' rights.
State's Duty and Polluter's Liability
The state, to sustain its claim of functioning for the welfare of its citizens, is bound to regulate water supply by safeguarding, maintaining, and restoring water bodies to protect the right to healthy water and prevent health hazards. The court has laid down in many cases that states shall ensure water bodies are free from encroachments and steps must be taken to restore them.
Industries are liable not only to compensate but also bear the costs for restoring rivers. Remedial action would not stop at restoration but is a continuous process to sustain pollution-free rivers. A fresh cause of action would commence again if industries and local bodies fail in their duty.
The 'polluter pays' principle, though seemingly progressive, must be carefully examined to ensure it does not result in the emergence of a 'right to pollute' for those financially capable or willing to pay. When applied absolutely, this principle has not yet sufficiently mitigated environmental harm, yielding below-average results.
Tanneries have exploited this system, discharging effluents under the assumption that payment of compensation grants them the right to pollute. This is a broader problem in developing countries, where it is often seen as more cost-effective to pay low compensation than invest in cleaner technologies.
Polluters bear absolute liability for the harm they cause to the environment. Unlike tangible property damage, harm to ecosystems—such as destruction of flora, fauna, aquatic life, and disruption to micro-organisms—is not easily measurable in monetary terms. The impact on local communities and their livelihoods is also difficult to assess.
Vellore: A Case Study in Environmental Crisis
Vellore's current status highlights the critical consequences of unchecked industrialization and exploitation of natural resources. Once known for agricultural prosperity, the district now faces a grave environmental crisis driven by pollution from tanning industries, illegal sand mining, and poor waste management.
These activities have degraded vital ecosystems, polluted water bodies like the river Palar, and reduced groundwater availability, severely impacting farmers, fishermen, and local communities. The court has a duty to foster a comprehensive, balanced, and sustainable approach to curb water pollution in rivers.
Until the damage caused by tanneries to the ecology is reversed, polluters have a continuing duty to pay compensation. It is the bounden duty of central and state governments and local authorities to prevent, protect, and preserve natural resources and maintain a healthy, clean environment.
Background of the Case
A demand notice dated June 6, 2025, was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB), directing Landmark Ventures to deposit Rs 8.94 lakh as environmental compensation. The penalty followed a joint committee inspection on December 20, 2023, at the 'Prospera' residential complex in Bagmugaliya, Bhopal.
During the inspection, authorities found the sewage treatment plant (STP) non-operational, with an empty sewage collection tank and untreated sewage flowing out of the premises, accumulating on an adjoining open plot. These findings were recorded in an action taken report submitted to the tribunal on January 3, 2024.
On January 4, 2024, the NGT directed the state pollution control board to finalize the recommendation for environmental compensation after granting the project proponent an opportunity for hearing.
Developer's Defense and Pollution Control Board's Rebuttal
Advocates for the developer argued that a tripartite agreement had shifted responsibility for the STP's operation and maintenance to the residents' cooperative society. They claimed the demand was issued arbitrarily, without proper consideration of the developer's representations, and that once a completion certificate was issued, the developer could no longer be held liable for operational deficiencies.
Advocate Parul Bhadoria, appearing for the MPPCB, countered that the inspection was carried out under statutory powers and pursuant to earlier NGT directions. The developer had failed to obtain mandatory Consent to Operate under relevant pollution acts, and the completion certificate was irrelevant as environmental violations occurred when the project was still under the developer's control.
The board emphasized that private agreements cannot extinguish statutory environmental liability, especially when untreated sewage is discharged into the environment.
