LANDMARK CASE

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

(1997) 1 SCC 388 · Supreme Court of India · Environmental law

At a glance

Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 388
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Environmental law
In one line: No. The public trust doctrine applies, and the state is a trustee of natural resources.

1 Facts

A motel diverted the course of the river Beas in Himachal Pradesh to protect its property.

2 Issue

Can the state lease ecologically fragile land for private use?

3 What the court decided

No. The public trust doctrine applies, and the state is a trustee of natural resources.

4 Why it matters

It introduced the public trust doctrine into Indian law.

5 Think about it

Which other resources could the public trust doctrine protect?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Environmental law

A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718
Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2017) 1 SCC 412
Centre for Environmental Law, WWF India v. Union of India (Asiatic Lion) (2013) 8 SCC 234
Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496
Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212
Lafarge Umiam Mining v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 338

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya)M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries) →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.