In a major environmental ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by Swacch Association, Nagpur, which had sought demolition of structures around the city’s iconic Futala Lake. The NGO had claimed that the musical fountain, viewing gallery, and parking plaza built around the lake violated wetland conservation laws. However, the bench led by Justice N.V. Anjaria, along with Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran, disagreed, holding that Futala Lake is a man-made waterbody and does not fall under the definition of a “wetland” under the 2017 Rules.
Background
The Swacch Association had approached the court alleging that authorities, in the name of beautification, had “permanently altered” the lake’s ecosystem. They objected to the installation of a musical fountain, a nine-storey parking structure, and even a floating restaurant with an artificial banyan tree. The petitioner argued that these projects violated the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and the public trust doctrine recognized in environmental jurisprudence.
The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed the plea, holding that while the lake appeared in the National Wetland Inventory, it was originally constructed in 1799 by the Bhonsale rulers for irrigation and recreational purposes - hence, excluded from the statutory definition of “wetland.”
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court’s reasoning, noting that the Futala Tank was a “man-made structure meant for irrigation and recreation.” The bench emphasized, “The statutory concept of wetland does not include human-made tanks or water bodies constructed for such purposes.”
The Court observed that multiple permissions - including environmental, heritage, and civic clearances - had been duly obtained for the development works. “It could not be demonstrated that the viewer’s gallery or other structures had any adverse ecological impact,” the judgment said.
On the NGO’s allegation that 7,000 tonnes of concrete were dumped inside the lake for constructing an artificial banyan tree, the Court found the claim “exaggerated” and clarified that the installation was “a temporary, removable structure vetted by IIT Mumbai and VNIT Nagpur.”
Importantly, the Court reiterated the importance of the public trust doctrine, reminding authorities that even man-made waterbodies should be preserved in the spirit of ecological balance. “The public trust doctrine would thus extend even to artificially created lakes, as they too serve environmental and social purposes,” the bench observed.
Decision
Concluding the matter, the bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bombay High Court’s decision. It noted that the High Court’s directions - requiring authorities to prevent any permanent construction within the lake and to ensure its maintenance - struck the right balance between development and environmental protection.
“The judgment and order of the High Court are a balancing exercise, eminently proper and legal, booking no error,” the Supreme Court said, effectively closing the case.
Case Title: Swacch Association, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra & Others
Judgment Date: October 7, 2025