Supreme Court Upholds Legality of Futala Lake Beautification, Declines PIL Against Musical Fountain and Gallery

The appeal arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a registered environmental association challenging construction and beautification works undertaken around Futala Lake in Nagpur. The grievance related to the installation of a musical fountain within the lake, a viewer’s gallery on its bank, and the construction of a multi-storey parking plaza nearby. The appellant contended that the lake was a “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and that such activities violated Rule 4(2)(vi), which prohibits permanent construction within 50 metres of the wetland boundary. It was further alleged that the authorities had ignored environmental norms and the public trust doctrine.

The respondents, including the Municipal Corporation, Metro Rail Corporation, and the Nagpur Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, placed on record multiple permissions and No Objection Certificates from competent agencies such as the Heritage Committee, Public Works Department, Fisheries Department, and others. They clarified that the gallery was built above the bund without disturbing the lakebed, the floating structures were temporary and vetted by technical institutes, and compensatory afforestation was undertaken to preserve ecological balance. It was emphasized that the lake was originally constructed in 1799 for irrigation and drinking water purposes and is a Grade I heritage structure under the 2003 Heritage Regulations.

Main Issue: Whether Futala Lake qualifies as a “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules, and whether the beautification and recreational projects violated environmental and constitutional principles.

Supreme Court’s Directions: The Apex Court held that Futala Lake is a man-made reservoir, constructed for irrigation and water supply, and hence excluded from the definition of “wetland” under Rule 2(1)(g) of the 2017 Rules. Thus, Rule 4 prohibiting permanent construction in wetlands does not apply. However, the Bench emphasized that the “precautionary principle” and “doctrine of public trust” must guide all development near such waterbodies.

Upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that even man-made or artificial waterbodies must be conserved in the spirit of Article 48-A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. It endorsed the High Court’s directions that no permanent structures be erected within the lake and that all recreational facilities must be maintained without ecological damage. The Court lauded the project’s dual objective, promoting public welfare while maintaining environmental balance, and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Futala Lake beautification complied with the law and conservation norms.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below