Explainer Series: Public Trust Doctrine
Introduction
In 1982, the American Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois[1] struck down the Illinois legislature’s attempt to sell the Michigan lake waterfront area in Chicago to a private corporation. The Court made its decision with the rationale that doing so would amount to the Illinois legislature abandoning its duty and responsibility over property which it holds in trust of the public – something that it cannot do. This ruling proves to be among the most influential decisions for the development of the Doctrine of Public Trust in the United States.
The Public Trust doctrine proposes that certain property is held by the state in trust of the public. The properties which fall under public trust vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction however, critical public resources and public infrastructure generally fall in this category. Thus, the state acts as a guardian of these crucial natural resources fundamental for the sustenance of the community at large. Upon the state failing to carry out its duty, the citizens can seek remedy in the courts of law. Initially evolving in the United States, the Public Trust Doctrine has emerged as a cornerstone of environmental law globally. This article will try to decode this fascinating concept which has undergone a long process of historical evolution and is applied in diverse ways all over the world.
Genesis and Evolution of the Doctrine of Public Trust
The earliest origins of the Public Trust Doctrine can be traced back to Roman Law where the state did not ‘own’ the shoreline or the harbours, rather, these were designated for public use while being supervised and maintained by the state. In early English Law, the sovereign was thought to have private ownership over all navigable waterways and wildlife within the territory they controlled. This changed with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, following which tidelands, navigable waterways, and wildlife were still owned by the office of the King but were now in trust for the people at large.
The initial application of the Public Trust Doctrine in US courts was not driven by environmental concerns but commercial ones. The court looked to the doctrine to impose upon the state the duty to protect public rights such as commerce, fishing, and navigation. The courts achieved this by prohibiting the state from using the submerged lands under its control in any manner which would impede public use of or access to the same. [2]
However, a radical departure from this limited application of the doctrine in the last 40 years was catalysed by the influential essay “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law: Effective Judicial Intervention” (1970) authored by Professor Joseph L Sax. Courts across the United States relied upon Sax’s legal arguments to extend the Public Trust Doctrine beyond its traditional application in commerce, fishing, and navigation to address various environmental issues; the Supreme Courts of New Jersey and California being on the forefront. A notable example is the 1971 case Mark v Whitney which in which the Supreme Court of California observed;
“There is a growing public recognition that one of the most important public uses of the tidelands—a use encompassed within the tidelands trust—is the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study,”[3]
Courts began to try and strike a balance between the public trust right to access resources and the need to protect and conserve these resources for the benefit of the larger community. Parallelly, courts also began to grant broad standing to the citizenry to bring suits against the government for mismanagement of trust resources. However, the scope of the doctrine varies greatly from state to state.For example while in California and New Jersey, which have been the front runners in the evolution of the public trust doctrine in the United States, on account of state agencies failing to perform their duties as trustees members of the public can seek to compel them into doing so, in North Carolina, though the courts has upheld a vast array of public rights these are only enforceable by the state government and not by citizens.
The Indian Context
In 1997, the Supreme Court of India, for the first time, acknowledged the Public Trust Doctrine through its landmark judgement in M C Mehta v. Kamal Nath[4]. The Court aligned itself with the decades-long judicial developments in the United States by drawing various landmark verdicts, thus, giving the Public Trust Doctrine an influential role within the Indian Environmental Law framework. The court has since, through subsequent decisions, broadened the scope of the doctrine to include all natural resources. Beyond judicial interpretations, Article 48 of the Indian Constitution also confers the positive responsibility on the state to improve and protect the environment.
The avenue of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) through which citizens may hold governments accountable for any mismanagement of trust resources on their part, is also available. PIL allows individuals to bring suits to court on behalf of those segments of society which, owing to social or economic disadvantage, are unable to do so themselves. Since the protection of natural resources is closely intertwined with the protection of rights of indigenous communities, the PIL course of action has proved crucial for the development of the Public Trust Doctrine in India.
Conclusion
The Public Trust Doctrine, with its flexibility and constantly evolving nature, has played a significant role in the management of public resources for centuries. The Doctrine recognizes that citizens hold a stake in how natural resources are managed and encourages widespread participation from the public. Its modern application towards environmental conservation marks the realisation that maintaining and improving natural resources is key to the sustenance of any community.
Image source: www.roffeypark.ac.uk
댓글