The case is a milestone in the history of Indian environmental law. This case is recognised as one of the most important and historic judgments ever made. The Supreme Court did an amazing job of interpreting the "Public Trust Doctrine" and enabling it to apply in India. It also contributed in the establishment of the 'Polluter Pay Principle' and the 'Principle of Deterrence.'

The Public Trust Doctrine asserts that the sovereign holds resources such as land, sea, air, and forests in trust for public use, independent of private property ownership. Land, sea, air, and woods are communal resources that belong to all of humanity. These natural resources are seen to be a gift from the gods. The government manages these in the public interest. As a result, no private institution may possess or use the resources. The government is prohibited from distributing certain public trust resources to any private entity for commercial purposes.

Facts
'Span Motels Private Limited.' was a private corporation operated by the founders of Span Resorts that developed a new project known as "Span Club" on the river's edge. The "Indian Express" released an explosive article headlined "Kamal Nath defies the powerful Beas to keep his dreams floating" that revealed problems with the Span Club's development. After the article was published, it was discovered that the 'then Minister of Environment and Forests'.

Mr. Kamal Nath was involved directly in the Span Motel case. The Ministry of Environment and Forests provided its previous approval to the corporation leasing roughly 27.12 bighas of additional forest area in a letter dated November 24, 1993. (Dated April 11, 1994). This decision allowed the company's founders to proceed with their extravagant project, dubbed "Span Club," which resulted in the river overflowing.

Also, owing to the pressure from bulldozers, tractor trolleys, and earthmovers used to build strongly cemented embankments along the river, which caused a shift in the Beas river's channel, the adjacent lawns were wiped away. In 1995, the Beas River triggered a massive flood that damaged property valued roughly 105 crores.
 
Issues:

1. Was the construction carried out by Span Motels Pvt. Ltd. legal and justified?
2. Is it possible that Mr. Kamal Nath was wrongfully charged by the court?
3. Whether or not the "Public Trust Doctrine" applies in India?

Arguments Of The Petitioner
The petitioner contended that this building disrupted the environment's ecological balance and harmed the natural conditions of forest land, water, and air, which are gifts from nature, and that it would be considered a breach of Article 21's fundamental right. This would also constitute a breach of Article 51A (g).
 
"Protection of life and personal liberty" is the subject of Article 21. The notion of the right to life includes nature and the environment, without which life cannot be enjoyed in a healthy, joyful, and happy manner. As a result, it has become a basic right of every Indian person to live a healthy life free of pollution.

"The duty of every citizen to look after the environment," as mentioned in Article 51A (g). Every citizen of India has a responsibility to preserve and maintain the environment since any disruption in any of the natural components required for life would be harmful to the lives of all people of the nation.
 
Arguments Of The Respondent
Mr. Kamal Nath denied the charges levelled against him. He alleged that M.C. Mehta had falsely accused him. He said that the claims made in the press reports were unfounded. They are false and exaggerated, and then they were released to tarnish his reputation. It was also claimed that the development took place on land owned by Span Motel. The surrounding area was constructed to protect the land from future floods.
 
Judgement
This case was heard in court by a two-judge panel, which ordered and instructed that: After so much deliberation, the court granted the "Public Trust Doctrine" in this case. The public trust doctrine, as stated by the judges throughout the hearing, should be included in the Land laws. The court rejected the earlier approval issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, as well as the lease instrument in favour of the corporation for an area of 27.12 bighas.

The Himachal Pradesh government was given the task of taking control of the land and returning it to its natural and environmental state. The court ordered the hotel to pay the cost of environmental and ecological restitution settlement under the Polluter Pay Principle.

The pollution generated by the construction of the hotel on the River banks of the Beas was ordered to be reversed and removed by the court. It was decided that NEERI should investigate the motel's pollution control strategies. For its development, the hotel was compelled to create a 4-meter-long boundary wall, beyond which they were not entitled to access the river basin's property. The Motel should not even use a portion of the river basin.

From the Motel's border wall, the river basin should be left intact. The river's bank and basin should be left accessible to the general population. The hotel was prohibited from dumping untreated sewage into the river. The Board was ordered to inspect all hotels, institutions, and companies in the Kullu-Manali area, and if any of them are discovered red-handed releasing untreated garbage into the river, the Board shall take strict legal action against them. The Motel, through its management, should demonstrate why an extra pollution fee is not mandatory. The reports were to be submitted by the 17th of December 1996 and listed on the 18th of December 1996.

Case Analysis
According to the lawsuit Mr. Kamal Nath (Minister of the Environment and Forest Department) abused his position, resulting in environmental deterioration, damage, and pollution. He put his financial interests first, putting them ahead of his responsibilities and duties to the nation's natural resources. In this case, it was determined that Kamal Nath was directly engaged with the hotel since he used to own a majority of the company's shares. Property damage totaling over 105 crores was caused by his greed and misuse of authority.

An unprecedented flood caused the damage, which was the result of the hotel company's ongoing building on the river bank. Mr. Kamal Nath was the subject of a PIL filed by MC Mehta. After numerous debates and lengthy hearings, the court issued a landmark decision allowing the Doctrine of Public Trust concept to be applied in India. Finally, the Indian judiciary delivered justice to the environment and natural resources, something the ministry of forest and the environmental department had failed to achieve.

Conclusion
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. is an important landmark case. This case gave rise to a new notion in India:
The "Public Trust Doctrine" principle's application. Apart from this concept, the judgement correctly applied two additional principles that were significant under Environmental Law.

When the court ordered the hotel to pay the compensation costs, the "Polluter Pay Principle" was used. When the court imposed exemplary damages on the hotel, the "Principle of Deterrence" was used.

The doctrine of public trust lays the groundwork for increasing the impact of Indian environmental laws' efficiency and efficacy. It also commands the state to maintain and care for the natural resources that our mother nature has bestowed upon us. They must be safeguarded, kept, and valued. It made it a responsibility for Indian residents to safeguard their environment from harm, since it is a fundamental right for every person to live in a healthy environment.

This philosophy is extremely important for environmental conservation. The decision not only upheld environmental justice for nature, but it also established a successful and significant component of environmental legislation in the country to help safeguard the environment. It became simpler for the judiciary to rule on environmental disputes after this decision, such as Th. Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation and M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu.