Nagpur's Futala Lake Not Wetland : Supreme Court Allows Constructions Near It

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 7) upheld the Bombay High Court's decision declining to classify Nagpur's Futala Lake as a 'wetland' under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, thereby permitting the State authorities to proceed with temporary constructions such as a floating restaurant, banquet hall, musical fountain, and viewing gallery around the lake.

"In view of this Court, the Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody and it does not fall within the meaning of the statutory definition and is not a 'wetland' as defined in Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. The definition excludes human-made waterbodies and those constructed inter alia for irrigation purposes. The High Court was justified in recording finding in the interim order dated 05.07.2023 and confirming the same while passing the impugned final judgment and order.”, the court said.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria dismissed the petition filed by Nagpur based NGO-Swachh Association, who filed a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court raising concerns about the breach of environmental safeguards under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and argued that the raising temporary structures risked ecological damage.

The petitioner argued that such constructions violated the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, harmed the ecology of the lake, and ignored planning and environmental safeguards. It relied on the Public Trust Doctrine and the Precautionary Principle, urging restoration of the lake to its original state.

The State and other respondents opposed, contending that Futala Lake was a man-made water body, not a “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. They argued that all necessary permissions and sanctions (2019 and 2022 approvals, Heritage Committee clearance, Urban Development Department approval) had been duly obtained. Delay and laches were also raised against the petitioner.

Noting that Futala is a man-made water body and not a statutory wetland, and that all required permissions had been obtained by the State Authorities, the High Court recognized Futala Lake as not a statutory wetland but applied environmental principles to protect it directing to not raise any permanent structures and allowing sanctioned projects to proceed with strict safeguards against ecological harm.

Challenging the High Court's decision, the NGO moved to the Supreme Court, where the Court in January, 2024, had ordered the status quo on construction of temporary structures in and around the Futala Lake and sought the response from the State Government on the status of 'temporariness' of the structures concerned.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria noted that the High Court's direction not to erect the permanent structures around the lake is guided by the doctrine of public trust, stating that "the public trust doctrine need not be limited to the natural bodies such as waterbodies, wetlands, lakes, rivers which are nature's gifts, but holds true also with respect to the man-made or artificially created waterbodies as well as the things and the objects from nature in order to promote ecology and environment. All those man-made or artificial bodies created from natural resources which contribute to the environment and are eco-friendly in their existence, have to be subject to the doctrine of public trust.”

“The public trust doctrine would thus extend in respect of even man-made or artificially created natural objects, waterbodies, lakes, wetlands, etc. which are drawn and created from the nature or natural resources. It would in ultimate analysis pave way to extend to ensure the availment of right of healthy environment and ecological balance recognized for the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. At the same time promoting sustainable development for public good is not alien to it.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Swacch Association, Nagpur v The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 978

Click Here To Read/Download judgment