Supreme Court upholds High Court directions to protect Futala Lake but holds it is not a ‘wetland’ under 2017 Rules

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria heard an appeal by Swacch Association, Nagpur challenging the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 30.11.2023 that had disposed of a public interest litigation seeking removal of recreational and built structures at Futala Lake in Nagpur and declaration that the lake was a wetland. The appeal contested the legality of a musical fountain and related installations, a viewer’s gallery and a proposed multi-storey parking plaza, invoking the Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017 and the public trust doctrine.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s directions while clarifying legal classification and applicable protections. The Supreme Court held that Futala Tank was a man-made waterbody constructed for drinking and irrigation purposes and therefore did not fall within the statutory definition of “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules; however, the Court endorsed the High Court’s insistence that the “spirit” of Rule 4 (restrictions on permanent constructions within wetlands) and the public trust doctrine be respected to protect the lake’s ecological character. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also reiterated the public trust principle as articulated in earlier precedents, observing that “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.”

Background The dispute arose from a PIL by Swacch Association alleging that the Futala Tank had been treated as a wetland and exploited for commercial and recreational projects including a floating musical fountain, an artificial banyan-tree screen for multimedia shows, a floating restaurant/banquet and a viewer’s gallery on the bank, together with a proposed nine-storey parking plaza. The petitioner relied on the National Wetland Inventory (NWIA) listing and Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules to claim prohibitions in Rule 4(2)(vi) against permanent constructions within fifty metres of mean high flood level. The authorities produced sanctioned plans, multiple No Objection Certificates from municipal, heritage, fisheries, police and other departments, heritage committee approvals, and technical vetting reports (including IIT and VNIT inputs) to show permissions complied with applicable norms; compensatory afforestation measures were also placed on record.

At the interim stage the High Court recorded a prima facie view that Futala did not squarely fall within Rule 2(1)(g) but noted that being listed in NWIA attracted the protectionist tenor of Rule 4 and directed that no permanent constructions be undertaken inside the lake. The Supreme Court examined historical records, technical material and statutory language and agreed that Futala was a man-made tank constructed in 1799 with irrigation and drinking water purposes, and thus excluded from the statutory “wetland” definition. The Court nonetheless endorsed the High Court’s protective directions, observing that the precautionary principle and public trust doctrine required guarding the lake’s ecological character even where the strict statutory definition did not apply. The apex court found the artificial banyan-tree and floating installations to be temporary in character on the basis of material showing lack of permanent foundations and removability, and held that the High Court’s balancing directions were “eminently proper and legal.” The appeal was dismissed on 07.10.2025; interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly. The Court reiterated that governmental authorities were bound to protect such waterbodies in the public interest.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1199 (Reportable) Case Title: Swacch Association, Nagpur v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (for R-1,2 & 8); Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General (for R-8 & 9); Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate (for R-3); Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate (for R-4); Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Advocate (for R-5); Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, Senior Advocate (for R-6); Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate (for intervenor).