Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
CLIMATE LITIGATION AND PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN HUMAN-INDUCED DISASTERS
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
CLIMATE LITIGATION AND PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN HUMAN-INDUCED
DISASTERS
AUTHORED
BY - PROF. DR. MEENAKUMARY S
Project Director,
ICSSR-Funded Minor Research
Project, GLCT
CO-AUTHOR
- DANNY VARGHESE
Research
Assistant, ICSSR-Funded Minor Research Project, GLCT
ABSTRACT
Disasters are growing in an
alarming frequency. Disasters like floods, landslides, sea erosion are not just
mere natural processes but rather they are accelerated by human activities on
ecological systems. Particularly uncontrolled deforestation, urbanisation,
encroachment on riverbeds and improper environmental regulations are all
factors aiding to this increased rate. This paper tries to analyse the Public
Trust Doctrine (PTD) as one of the least used tools in holding the State
accountable in matters of human-induced disasters in the broader spectrum of
climate litigation. The Doctrine is based on the principle that several natural
resources like rivers, coastline, water and air are under the trust of the
State and this is for the benefit of general population. This places a
fiduciary obligation on the Government to protect and conserve these
resources. The paper
proposes that state
negligence in these
instances may result in the occurrence of
disasters and subsequent displacement of people. Several landmark cases along
with many recent cases worldwide
shows the growing
development of the Doctrine and its
widespread use in environment related
jurisprudence. Additionally, the paper tries
to analyse how the principle of Public trust
doctrine have been integrated into climate litigation across the world,
effectively broadening the definition to include accountability in case of
disasters. Furthermore, the paper tries to identify the gaps in enforcement, judicial
inconsistency and lack of international standards and
suggest reforms to bridge these gaps. The paper concludes that the Doctrine
when used in a consistent, purposeful way, can be a vital tool to enforce
accountability in matters of Human-induced disasters.
INTRODUCTION
India has experienced a significant
increase in disasters which are not solely the outcome of natural processes.
Landslides, cyclones and floods in the country are increasing at a high rate
not only because of extreme weather events but human-interference with delicate
ecosystems plays an important
role in this such as deforestation, uncontrolled urbanisation and building
in ecologically vulnerable areas. The Himalayan city of Joshimath
provides a great example, institutions commissioned by the Uttarakhand government following its 2023 land subsidence
crisis discovered that significant damage was done by man-made factors,
particularly due to unplanned construction above
the capacity of the region,
blocked natural drainage
systems and huge
infrastructure development undertaken without conducting sufficient geological examination.[1]
The Wayanad landslide of 2024 is one of the deadliest
landslides in the history of Kerala. The district had already been identified by the Disaster
Management Authority as highly vulnerable after the 2018 floods, with
authorities warning that unsustainable land-use practices that were in
contravention of current standards were escalating the threat of landslides.[2]
India has recurring problem of hazard being
identified by scientific and administrative authorities, but it is not always accompanied by the required
enforcement of action.
It leads to a question
that, in the case where the
severity of a disaster is increased by the negligence or inaction of the state
itself, such as by failing to act in response to its own assessments of
hazards, can the state be held legally responsible. The Public Trust Doctrine
(PTD) is one of the under-utilized legal provisions that can be used in this
question.
The doctrine believes that the
state holds resources such as rivers, forests, coastline and air in trust on
behalf of the people, making it a fiduciary responsibility to preserve those
resources. In 1996, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court of India
acknowledged the doctrine, which is that the Himachal
Pradesh government violated
this trust by distributing delicate
forest land along the riverbank to private parties.[3] The doctrine has since found extensive application in Indian environmental law to prevent
encroachment and pollution of particular resources. Its application to disaster
accountability, whether a breach of trust has a direct
effect to a landslide
or flood, is much less established. There
are already precursors of this principle
in other courts:
the Lahore High Court in Pakistan
used the doctrine in 2015 to impose liability upon the government based on
climate policy inaction.[4]
This paper argues that the Public
Trust Doctrine, though
rarely employed in disaster litigation in India, provides a logical
framework of state responsibility in man-made disaster cases. Furthermore, this
paper analyses the foundations of the doctrine, its evolution, gaps in
application and suggest reforms.
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION
The Public Trust Doctrine
is based on the idea that certain
natural resources such as air, water,
sea, and coastline belong to all people and cannot be possessed individually or
by the state itself. This doctrine have its roots in Roman law, in the
Institutes of Emperor Justinian, these resources were proclaimed common to mankind.[5] The idea was later stated in English
common law through the Magna Carta
of 1215 which
guaranteed common usage
of navigable and tidal
waters by the public for commerce, navigation and fishing but did not permit
monopolies.[6] According to this
principle, the sovereign did not own these resources but is a custodian
(trustee) and all these resources had to be preserved for the public.
This doctrine was a narrow, almost
dormant common-law principle until an article in the Michigan Law Review in
1970 by Professor Joseph Sax suggested it could be broadened into an effective means of environmental litigation.[7] Sax suggested that the courts
have to approach state-action limiting access by
the public to natural resources with doubt,
by repositioning the doctrine as a restraint on state-action that may
damage environmental resources.
The application of this doctrine in India is a relatively new and it made its way into Indian law with the 1996 case of M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath. The ruling defined certain fundamental aspects that still influence the Indian environmental jurisprudence. Mainly, that certain natural resources are in the trust of the
state which are to be used by public. Secondly, the state has positive
responsibility towards the preservation of these resources.
This fiduciary framing
is what sets the PTD apart as compared to other environmental regulations. This is what makes the doctrine an important tool in the context of disasters. The only thing required is that the state has failed in its fiduciary obligation to preserve a resource that is in trust and that the harm that is caused by it is foreseeable and demonstrably caused by
this breach.
HUMAN INDUCED DISASTERS
IN INDIA
In India, some disasters occur not
only due to natural factors. They do occur due to human factors as well, such as deforestation, constructing in unstable areas and disregarding the known risks.
One such event is the 2023 land subsidence in Joshimath. Studies have
discovered that the damage was primarily due to anthropogenic factors, such as
development beyond the safe carrying capacity of the region, blocked drainage
and infrastructural projects constructed without effective geological
assessment.[8]
The same trend can be observed
in the Western Ghats as well. It had been cautioned by expert
panels, including the Gadgil Committee in 2011 and the Kasturirangan Committee
in 2013, which warned that unregulated construction and deforestation in this ecologically sensitive area would increase
the chances of landslides.[9] The 2024 landslide
in Wayanad, Kerala occurred in a district that had already been
identified as high-risk following the 2018 floods in the state. These incidents
have a common pattern, the danger is usually predictable beforehand with the help
of scientific investigation and warnings, yet the authorities does not necessarily act on this information.
This possesses two legal
issues, The former
concerns the occurrence of the disaster
itself as to who
bears the responsibility when a landslide
or a flood kills, injures
or displaces people.
The second is regarding the role of the government prior to the
disaster, which is ignoring known warnings and failing to enforce regulations
amount to negligence.
This is where the Public Trust
Doctrine comes in to action. When the state is the trustee of forests, rivers
and coastlines for the public, then any damage to them because of unregulated
construction or ineffective enforcement, may be a breach of that trust. When
that violation subsequently causes a disaster, it strengthens the argument that
the state could be held responsible, not simply for environmental damage, but
for the human harm also.
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE
IN INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE
Since the Kamal Nath decision of
1996, Indian courts and tribunals have gradually begun applying the Public
Trust Doctrine in various environmental cases. One case is a National Green
Tribunal (NGT) case concerning water bodies in Gurgaon, Haryana. The Tribunal
directed the district to find and clear
its water bodies,
assign each a special ID, and prevent
the dumping of waste into the water bodies in the society and treat
water bodies as social assets the state should preserve.[10]
However, the doctrine was not
consistently applied in all cases. In a seaport project case on a coastal site
in Kerala which was ecologically sensitive, the NGT did not apply the doctrine
to this case. The court provided two reasons, firstly because the doctrine
could not be applied where a law or regulation had already dealt with the case and secondly, because
the project was for
the larger public
good and no private interest
was being promoted.[11] Studies
have indicated that such an
argument is inconsistent with how the Supreme Court viewed the doctrine in
Kamal Nath case when the Supreme Court
clarified that it continues to perform its role despite the presence of other laws. This indicates that Indian courts are not always consistent regarding the circumstances and the timing of usage of this
doctrine.
This discrepancy is of particular
concern to disaster cases. Mostly the doctrine has been employed to prevent
harmful usage of a resource such as preventing the construction of an illegal
structure or the restoration of a water body or the cancellation of an illegal
lease. This raises a significant gap, did the failure of the state
to protect a resource such as a forest or river,
subsequently result in a disaster. It is this gap that the paper tries to
address, the doctrine is defined to prevent
harm to resources, but it is still not an effective tool that can be used against
the state when that harm turns into a disaster.
ENFORCEMENT GAPS AND JUDICIAL INCONSISTENCY
Even where Indian courts
acknowledge the Public Trust Doctrine, enforcement is a different issue. There
are various parts related to this gap.
To
begin with, fragmented authority a significant aspect of this gap. In India environmental
enforcement is a joint responsibility between the State
Pollution Control Boards
and the Central Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Considering this division of responsibility, where nobody is
completely accountable, results in ineffective enforcement.[12]
The lack of coordination among Central, State and Local authorities also
creates overlapping of responsibilities and uneven standards between one state
to another.[13]
In
addition to this, there is a resourcing issue. There are usually not enough
trained personnel, funding or technical skills
to carry out their work properly by the regulatory bodies responsible for environmental monitoring.[14] Even basic procedures, such as factory
inspection or monitoring of pollution rates, occur much rarer than what
the law mandates.[15]
Moreover,
Court orders themselves are not always followed. There are numerous environmental
protection and urban planning court cases in India that are partially or not
entirely enforced. In 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court was an example, granting
the rivers Ganga and Yamuna
the status of a legal
person, with similar
legal protections as a living
person, after the government did not respond to its earlier directions,
but within months the order was stayed on appeal by the Supreme Court, and did
not come into force. This demonstrates that sometimes even powerful court order
may not achieve long-term protection.[16]
Furthermore,
another aspect of this gap is the inconsistency in how courts apply the
doctrine. The
Public Trust Doctrine has been accepted by the National Green Tribunal in
certain instances, such as requiring
the restoration of water bodies in Gurgaon,
Haryana. But it was
not applied in a case of a coastal seaport
project, as the court framed
the doctrine far more
narrowly than the Supreme Court
had done in Kamal Nath’s
case. Such inconsistency renders it difficult to determine when the doctrine will be
invoked, which defeats its purpose as a reliable legal tool, especially in
times of disasters.
In
conclusion, these gaps show that mere recognition of the doctrine
is not sufficient. Stronger
coordination between authorities, adequate resource allocation, consistent
judicial application are factors that strengthen this doctrine especially in
the context of disasters.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering the gaps mentioned
above, few reforms would assist in transforming the Public Trust Doctrine into
a more reliable tool of disaster accountability in India.
To begin
with, the Courts
could explicitly tie claims related
to disasters to the Public
Trust Doctrine and Article 21. Because
the right to life is already safeguarded in the Constitution and courts have
interpreted that right to life includes a healthy environment.
Disaster-accountability related cases are better presented on these grounds.
The 2017 Ganga-Yamuna “legal person” decision indicates the risk of using new
legal concepts over an old established doctrine, as it was stayed on appeal
within a few months. Grounding disaster-claims on an existing recognised
doctrine in connection to a constitutional right, provides more strength to the
claim.
Additionally,
Court orders in disaster related cases should include a monitoring mechanism to follow through.
In Leghari
v. Federation of Pakistan, it was the Pakistani High Court of Lahore which created the
Climate Change Commission comprising of officials, experts and other members to
ensure that the government actually followed through.[17]
The Indian courts can take a similar path, directing the State authorities to
report on a periodical basis on whether
the known hazards
like those identified during landslide-risk assessment have actually been mitigated.
Moreover,
enforcement accountability must be unified. In India, environmental enforcement is divided
between the Central Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the
State Pollution Control Boards and it results in division of accountability
between them, as there is no single unified authority. Detailed guidelines on which authority
is responsible to act when a particular hazard alert has been received
would help to identify the authority responsible for its failure.
Furthermore, the
Public Trust Doctrine needs to be consistently applied in courts and tribunals.
The National Green Tribunal has
applied the doctrine in certain cases, but has refused to apply it in similar
cases involving development projects. Clearer directions regarding circumstances when the doctrine is applicable would
minimize this uncertainty and make it a more reliable tool for disaster
litigation in the future.
All these above reforms
or suggestions would help to strengthen the role of Public Trust Doctrine as a tool for climate
litigation, especially in the context of human induced disasters.
CONCLUSION
This paper has discussed
the question of whether the Public Trust Doctrine in India can be used to impose liability on the State in
cases where negligence resulted in occurrence of human-induced disasters. The
paper argues that it is possible, but at present it is not followed in a
consistently. Joshimath and Wayanad are some of the cases where the same
pattern repeats; scientific bodies and authorities document
known risks, but most of the time these risks
are not acted upon. This
shows a gap between that what State notices and what action arises on this
behalf. Since 1996 the Public Trust Doctrine has been recognised by the Supreme
Court and provides Indian law with the means to address this gap. However, this
doctrine has primarily been applied to prevent ongoing harm to a resource and
it is rarely used to make the State accountable when the harm results in a
disaster.
There are some issues that restrict
the effectiveness of the doctrine. To begin with, the enforcement is fragmented
and divided across various authorities, as a result sometimes even the decision
of a Court is not always followed
through correctly. Additionally, the application of
this doctrine by the Courts is inconsistent. The papers suggests that combining
a Court decision with enforcement mechanisms can mitigate this gap, for
example, Pakistan using a monitoring commission.
The main idea of this paper is
that, India does not require a new legal theory to attribute State
accountability in human induced disasters. It already has one, which is tested and accepted
for more than thirty years through various judicial decisions. Its
effectiveness depends on the consistency and proper enforcement. In conclusion,
Public Trust Doctrine is a significant tool that can be used in climate
litigation to hold the State accountable in certain cases of human induced
disasters.
[1] Mishra, Praveen. ‘Joshimath
Subsidence Linked to Human Activity’. The Secretariat, The Secretariat, 3
November 2023. https://thesecretariat.in/article/five-reasons-why-joshimath-subsidence-is-a-man-made-tragedy-not-a-natural-disaster.
[2] Pandey, Kiran. ‘Wayanad District
Is Highly Vulnerable to Disaster — Data and History Are Testament’. Down To
Earth, Down To Earth, 2 August 2024. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/natural-disasters/wayanad-district-is-highly-vulnerable-to-disaster-data-and-history-are-testament.
[3] LawBhoomi.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996). https://lawbhoomi.com/m-c-mehta-vs-kamal-nath-and-others/
[4] Heri, Corina. ‘Leghari v. Pakistan’. Climate
and Human Rights Litigation Database,
25 January 2018. https://climaterightsdatabase.com/2018/01/25/leghari-v-pakistan/.
[7] Chung, Jeanie.
‘Precedent Setting’. The University of Chicago Magazine, 2020. https://mag.uchicago.edu/law-policy-society/precedent-setting.
[8] Mishra, Praveen.
‘Joshimath Subsidence Linked to Human Activity’. The Secretariat, The
Secretariat, 3 November 2023. https://thesecretariat.in/article/five-reasons-why-joshimath-subsidence-is-a-man-made-tragedy-not-a-natural-disaster.
[9] Pandey, Kiran.
‘Wayanad District Is Highly Vulnerable to Disaster — Data and History Are Testament’. Down To
Earth, Down To Earth, 2 August 2024. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/natural-disasters/wayanad-district-is-highly-vulnerable-to-disaster-data-and-history-are-testament.
[10] Verma, Ayush. ‘Public Trust
Doctrine in India’. iPleaders, 22 August 2023. https://blog.ipleaders.in/public-trust-doctrine-india/.
[11] Ghosh, Shibani.
Indian Environmental Law Key Concepts and Principles. Orient BlackSwan, 2019. https://www.orientblackswan.com/pdfs/opaccess/html/9789352875795/chapter6/chapter6.html.
[12] IndianRepublic.in. ‘Enforcement vs Law — The Indian
Governance Gap’. Writesaket, Blogger, 14 May 2026.
https://www.indianrepublic.in/2026/05/enforcement-vs-law-indian-governance-gap.html.
[13] Reddy, Jyothi.
(2026). Climate Law and Environmental Governance in India:
Emerging Judicial Trends.
Indian JournalofLaw.4.35-52.10.36676/ijl.v4.i1.154.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400121601_Climate_Law_and_Environmental_Governance_in_India
_Emerging_Judicial_Trends
[14] Reddy, Jyothi.
(2026). Climate Law and Environmental Governance in India:
Emerging Judicial Trends.
Indian JournalofLaw.4.35-52.10.36676/ijl.v4.i1.154.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400121601_Climate_Law_and_Environmental_Governance_in_India
_Emerging_Judicial_Trends
[15] IndianRepublic.in. ‘Why
Enforcement Is the Weak Link in Rule of Law’. Writesaket, Blogger, 20 May 2026.
https://www.indianrepublic.in/2026/05/why-enforcement-weak-link-rule-of-law-india.html.
[16] Saba.
‘Uttaranchal High Court’s Order Declaring Ganga, Yamuna as Living Entities
Stayed’. SCC Times, 8 July 2017. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2017/07/08/uttaranchal-high-courts-order-declaring-ganga-yamuna-as-living-entities-stayed/.
[17] Heri, Corina. ‘Leghari
v. Pakistan’. Climate
and Human Rights Litigation Database,
25 January 2018. https://climaterightsdatabase.com/2018/01/25/leghari-v-pakistan/.
How to Cite This Article
PROF. DR. MEENAKUMARY S, DANNY VARGHESE, CLIMATE LITIGATION AND PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN HUMAN-INDUCED DISASTERS., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. 4, Issue 1, September 2026, pp. 496-506, DOI Link: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/09.2026-93662776/CLIMATE LITIGATION AND PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: LEGA. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/public/details/climate-litigation-and-public-trust-doctrine-legal-accountability-in-human-induced-disasters
Author & Publication Record
Authors: PROF. DR. MEENAKUMARY S & DANNY VARGHESE
Registration ID: 107075 | Published Paper ID: WBL7074 & WBL7075
Year: Sep- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 1
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 496-506
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied