CASE ANALYSIS OF

M.C. MEHTA v. KAMAL NATH and OTHERS

(1997) 1 SCC 388

By: -
CHANDRIMA M M
2nd Year, BBA, LL.B.
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE
Mobile : +918929841110
E-mail: chandrima.mm@gmail.com

1
www.probono-india.in
 (25 NOVEMBER 2020)

ABSTRACT
The following is a brief Case Analysis of the case titled M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others
[(1997) 1 SCC 388].In this case, there was massive encroachment of land and of the Beas River
by Span Motel Pvt Ltd. This case is considered to be a landmark case in Indian Environmental
Law due to the fact that Public Trust Doctrine and The Polluter Pays Principle were applied. This
case has been read, summarized and analyzed broadly under the following heads : Brief Facts of
the Case, Issues in Arguments,Legal Aspects Involved,Precedents of High Court and Supreme
Court, Critical Overview of the Judgement and Suggestions for the same. This case focuses on
the Public Trust Doctrine and The Polluter Pays Principle and its application in India, as well as
in USA and the UK. The Supreme Court of India, via this landmark case reinstated the
application of the Public Trust Doctrine and The Polluter Pays Principle as well as established a
precedent for future cases. They stated that these principles were of relevance with the laws in
India and had discussed the lack and need for relevant legislation regarding the above. Span
Motels was ultimately held liable for this destruction and was made to pay compensation.

INTRODUCTION
M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others 1 is a landmark case in Indian environmental law. The
Supreme Court of India held in this case that the Public Trust Doctrine and The Polluter Pays
Principle will be applied in India.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The Indian Express published an article stating that Span Motels Private Limited, which owns
Span Resorts, had floated another ambitious enterprise, Span Club. Indian politician Kamal

1
M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others(1997) 1 SCC 388

2
Nath's family has direct connections with this business. The club was constructed in 1990 after
occupying 27.12 bighas of land, including extensive forestland. On 11 April 1994, the land was
later regularized and leased out to the company.
The regularization was done when Kamal Nath was the Minister of Environment and
Forests.This occupation and encroachment caused the Beas River to swell, and the swelling river
reversed its course and washed it downstream, engulfing the Span Club and the surrounding
lawns. For acourse of five months, the management of Span Resorts had been moving earth
movers and bulldozers for a second time to alter the Beas River’s course to save the Motel from
future floods by creating a new channel. Three private companies were engaged to reclaim huge
tracts of land around the Motel.
The Supreme Court took notice of the news item and the facts disclosed, in the view of the fact
that it was a serious act of environmental degradation on the part of the Motel.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. The first issue was whether the acts of Span Motels Private Limited was environmentally
degrading or not?
2. The second issue was whether there was a breach of The Public Trust Doctrineby Span
Motels Private Limited or not?
3. The third issue is regarding the liability of Span Motels Private Limited.

A Bench2 consisting of 2 judges examined the aforesaid matter.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE

 It was argued that the construction activities and the act of attempted diversion of the
river flow which were taking place was illegal and went directly against the lease.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

 Mr. Kamal Nath of the respondent’s side has firstly declared that he has been wronged in
the above petition as he has no right, title or interest in ‘Span Resorts’. He also further

2
The judges were Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.

3
 states that the allegations made in the press reports are exaggerated and mala fide in
nature and have been published to harm his reputation.
 Mr. Banwari Lal Mathur, the Executive Director of Span Motels also disclosed the
shareholding of Span Motels Pvt. Ltd, wherein, almost all the shares in the Motel are
owned by the family of Mr. Kamal Nath. The Court, however, chose not to comment on
this issue.
 Mr. S. Mukerji, President of the Span Motels Pvt Ltd. tried to defend the actions of the
Motel by stating that the act of restoring the river to its original course was done in the
view of good faith towards the environment and in the interest of the community living in
the nearby villages.
 The Motel had also stated that they had taken actions which protected the land from
erosion such as constructing crated, retaining walls and embankments along the river, but
were unable to finish the work due to the allegations against them.

LEGAL ASPECTS
The case revolves around The Public Trust Doctrine and whether there was such breach by Span
Motels Private Limited. The case also considers the “Polluter Pays Principle” to be of major
significance owing to the present issue.
The Public Trust Doctrine
The Public Trust Doctrine is the principle that the sovereign holds in trust for public use some
resources, irrespective of private property ownership.

This legal theory was established by the ancient Roman Empire. It was based on the principle
that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by
Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use by the general public. Under the
Roman Law, these resources were either owned by nobody (Res Nullious) or by all in common
(Res Communious).

The Polluter Pays Principle

In environmental law, the polluter pays principle is enacted to make the party responsible for
producing pollution responsible for paying for the harm done to the natural environment.

4
PRECEDENTS OF HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT
A large number of countries have adopted “The Public Trust Doctrine” in the laws of their land.
There isn’t a wide variety of known precedent in India considering this issue. The court, in this
case, has largely relied on American cases to establish the relevant matter.

In the case of Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois 3, “When a State
holds a resource which is available for the free use of the general public, a court will look with
considerable skepticism upon any governmental conduct which is calculated either to relocate
that resource to more restricted uses or to subject public uses to the self-interest of private
parties.”

In the case of Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission4, The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts took the first major step in developing the doctrine applicable to changes in the
use of lands dedicated to the public interest.

In the case of Sacco v. Development of Public Works5, the Massachusetts Court restrained the
Department of Public Works from filling a great pond as part of its plan to relocate part of State
Highway. The Department purported to act under the legislative authority. The court found the
statutory power inadequate and held as under :

“the improvement of public lands contemplated by this section does not include the widening of
a State Highway. It seems rather that the improvement of public lands which the legislature
provided for…. is to preserve such lands so that they may be enjoyed by the people for
recreational purposes.

In the case of Robbins v. Deptt. of Public Works6, the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts restrained the Public Works Department from acquiring Fowl Meadows,
“wetlands of considerable natural beauty…. Often used for nature study and recreation” for
highway use.

In the case of National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County 7, the Supreme
Court of California said that public trust is an affirmation of the duty of the state to protect the
people’s common heritage and is much more than an affirmation of state power to use public
3
Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois146 US 387
4
Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission350 Mass 410 (1996)
5
Sacco v. Development of Public Works532 Mass 670
6
Robbins v. Deptt. of Public Works244 NE 2d 577
7
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County33 Cal 3d 419

5
property for public purposes. The State is the trustee of all-natural resources which are by nature
meant for public use and enjoyment. 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. The esthetic use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and
the eco-systems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any
other use unless the courts find it necessary in good faith, for the public good and in public
interest to encroach upon the said resources.

In the case ofVellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India 8,the court explained the
“Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle”. They have also declared that these
principles are essential features of ‘Sustainable Development.
In the case ofIndian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India9, the court held that
‘The Polluter Pays Principle’ and the “Precautionary Principle” have been accepted as the law of
the land in India. The court ruled that once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently
dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any
other person by his activity, irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while
carrying on his activity. The court interpreted the principle to mean that absolute liability for
harm to the environment extends not only to the compensate the victims of pollution but also the
cost of restoring the environmental degradation. The court further settled that one who pollutes
the environment must pay to reverse the damages caused by his acts.

CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, in this case, analyzed the construction activities and the interference with
the natural flow of the river and has declared that this activity, being degrading to the
environment, is illegal in nature. There was a direct breach of The Public Trust Doctrine by the
Himachal Pradesh Government due to the fact that the land granted through lease was
ecologically fragile and was for commercial purposes. The Court quashed the lease- deed by
which the forested land was leased to the Moteland held that the construction activity carried out
by the Motel was not justified. The Motel was ordered to pay compensation by way of cost for
the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area. The Motel was ordered to construct a

8
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
9
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India(1996) 3 SCC 212

6
boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 meters for the building of the motel beyond which
they were not allowed to use the land of the river basin. The Court restricted the Motel from
discharging untreated effluent into the river. Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board was
directed to inspect and keep a check on the Motel.

The Court also discussed the clash between the struggle between those members of the public
who would preserve out environment and those charged with administrative responsibilities find
it necessary to encroach upon the environment. They however, held that the aesthetic use and the
ecosystems of the country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other
good use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public
interest to encroach upon the said resources. They had stated that the resolution to this conflict is
for the legislature and not the courts.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court was of the view that the attempts to divert the river stream and the
construction activities was degrading to the environment, which led to the application of “The
Public Trust Doctrine” and the “Polluter Pays Principle” in India. The Court quashed the lease-
deed by which the forested land was leased and ordered the Motel to pay compensation by way
of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area.

SUGGESTIONS
This case had accurately implemented “The Public Trust Doctrine” and the “Polluter Pays
Principle”.It is my suggestion that there be relevant legislation framed on the bases of the above
principles. The courtsdecide on a case-by-case manner the subjects of the above principles. This
leads to asymmetry in formation of judgements which will take precedence in future cases. With
relevant legislation concerning the above, there will be ease in the court proceedings.
The Supreme Court has also discussed the nature of laws which transcend with social values.
The Court has expressed their dissatisfaction with that fact that the current legal doctrine rarely
accounts for external environmental constraints, thus threatening the safety of the environmental
stability.

7
However, while having discussed the liability of Span Motels, the court had failed to address the
personal liability of Mr. Kamal Nath, which on a personal note is a shortcoming of this
judgement.

REFERENCES
1. M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC 388
2. Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois 146 US 387
3. Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission 350 Mass 410 (1996)
4. Sacco v. Development of Public Works 532 Mass 670
5. Robbins v. Deptt. of Public Works 244 NE 2d 577
6. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County 33 Cal 3d 419
7. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
8. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212

BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR

Chandrima M M is a 2nd year BBA LLB (Hons.) student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune. She
has a keen interest in Environmental Law, Intellectual Property Law and International
Commercial Arbitration. She was associated with “Journal for Law Students and Researchers” as
their Content Writer.