Polluter Pays Principle

Polluter Pays Principle has become a popular catchphrase in recent times. 'If you make a
mess, it's your duty to clean it up'- this is the main basis of this slogan. It should be
mentioned that in environmental law, the 'polluter pays principle' does not refer to "fault."
Instead, it favors a curative approach which is concerned with repairing ecological
damage. It's a principle in international environmental law where the polluting party pays
for the damage done to the natural environment. It is regarded as a regional custom
because of the strong support it has received in most Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and European Community (EC) countries.
International environmental law itself mentions little about the principle.

In recent days, the polluter pays principle is seen as a way of internalizing pollutionrelated costs within the context of the economic rationality of the enterprise. There is a
close relationship between a country's environmental policy and its overall
socioeconomic policy .[2] Furthermore, under this principle it is not the responsibility of
government to meet the costs involved in either prevention of environmental damage, or
in carrying out remedial action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial
burden of the pollution incident to the taxpayer. But State practice does not support the
view that all depollution costs should be borne by the polluter, particularly where
transnational dispute is involved. [3]
Author is going to deal with the history of the principle and its implementation at
domestic level, as also the major flaws prevailing in the implementation of this principle
in India. The author concludes by presenting the major problem our country is facing in
its implementation.
II. Historical Evolution of the PPP:
The first major reference to the PPP appeared 1972 in the OECD Guiding Principles
Concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies (henceforth called
OECD Guiding Principles). The PPP as a guiding principle across countries became
necessary because some countries faced complaints by national firms about rising costs
and a loss of international competitiveness following a national implementation of the
PPP within their borders.The OECD Guiding Principles define the PPP as an instrument
for "... allocating costs of pollution prevention and control measures".[4]
The polluter should bear these costs in order to achieve and maintain an "... acceptable
state of environment" which is determined by the public authorities. The OECD Guiding
1

Principles also state that the PPP should "... not be accompanied by subsidies that would
create significant distortions in international trade and investment ." This weak or
standard definition of the PPP neither requires polluters to bear the costs of accidental
damages, nor do they have to pay for residual pollution. [5]

The range of costs to be borne by the polluter has expanded over time. In 1989, the
OECD suggested extending the PPP in order to cover the costs of accident prevention and
to internalise the environmental costs caused by accidents. In 2001, the OECD Joint
Working Party on Agriculture and Environment stated that according to the PPP
"... the polluter should be held responsible for environmental damage caused and bear the
expenses of carrying out pollution prevention measures or paying for damaging the state
of the environment where the consumptive or productive activities causing the
environmental damage are not covered by property rights." This version of the PPP is
referred to as the extended or strong PPP in the literature. [6]

Only one year later, the European Community followed the example of the OECD
Principles from 1972 by adopting the first Environment Action Programme (EAP). Since
1987, the PPP has been part of European Law. It is included in Article 174 of the EU
Treaty (1997). Since 1990, when the International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response and Co-operation was agreed upon by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), the PPP has been acknowledged as a " ...general principle of
international environmental law." In 1992, the Rio Declaration (UNCED) included the
PPP in Principle 16: "National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation
of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the
approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution with due regard
to public interest and without distorting international trade and investment."
III. Flaws in the PPP:
It is true that polluter pays principle has a positive effect to reduce pollution. The
principle seems quite relevant for pollution that occurs during industrial activity, although
it remains inefficient in the case of historical pollution. Most developing countries,
however, have not yet subscribed to the PPP as a main environmental policy guideline.
As Rege (1994) points out, this is due to adverse economic conditions. Legal theorists
discovered few loopholes of this rule.
The flaws are as follows:
2

 Firstly, ambiguity still exists in determining 'who is a polluter'. In legal terminology, a

'polluter' is someone who directly or indirectly damages the environment or who creates
conditions relating to such damage. Clearly, this definition is so broad as to be
unsupportive in many situations.
Second, a large number of poor households, informal sector firms, and subsistence
farmers cannot bear any additional charges for energy or for waste disposal.
Third, small and medium-size firms from the formal sector, which mainly serve the
home market, find it difficult to pass on higher costs to the domestic end-users of their
products.
Fourth, exporters in developing countries usually cannot shift the burden of cost
internalisation to foreign customers due to elastic demand.
Lastly, many environmental problems in developing countries are caused by an
overexploitation of common pool resources. Access to these common pool resources (in
line with the PPP) could be limited in some cases through assigning private property
rights, however, this solution could lead to severe distributional conflicts.
All of these problems make it difficult to implement the PPP as a guideline for
environmental policy in developing countries. Despite the fact that Polluter Pay Principle
was publicized by early conservationists as a means to reduce ecological pollution, still
many consider it as a 'vague idea'. [9] Some put forward their argument that under this
principle a polluter fulfils his obligations when he pays at least some of administrative
expenses of the agencies who regulate pollution activities .'Exxon Valdez' case is the best
example of this criterion of Polluter Pays Principle. [10] Others argue that it can only be
satisfied by polluters when they will pay the total depollution cost. And the rest support
the view that tax (like 'Carbon Taxes') should be legitimised on the users of the natural
resources that cause atmospheric hazards. [11]
IV. Indian Judiciary and PPP:
The judiciary in India recognizes the Polluter Pays Principle as is seen from the judgment
delivered by the Supreme Court of India in writ petition no 657 of 1995. [13] In its order
dated Feb.4, 2005, The Supreme Court held that " The Polluter Pays Principle means
that absolute liability of harm to the environment extends not only to compensate
the victims of pollution, but also to the cost of restoring environmental degradation.
Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of sustainable
development."

In order to link law and sustainable development we split sustainable development into
two components:Environmental Justice
Social Justice
The two principles of justice are
Polluter Pays Principle (PPP)
Precautionary Principle (PP)
During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio "Sustainable Development" has come to
be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human
life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting eco-systems. "Sustainable
Development" as defined by the Brundtland Report means "development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to
meet their won needs". We have no hesitation in holding that "Sustainable
Development' as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been
accepted as a part of the Customary International Law though its salient features have yet
to be finalised by the International Law jurists.

"The Polluter Pays" principle has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in
Indian Council for Enviro - Legal Action v. Union of India, [14] . The Court observed,
"We are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple,
practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country" . In this case the number
of private companies operated as chemical companies were creating hazardous wastes in
the soil, henceforth, polluting the village area situated nearby, and they were also running
without licenses, so an environmental NGO, filed writ petition under article 32 of the
COI, which sought from the court to compel SPCB and CPCB to recover costs of the
remedial measures from the companies.
The Court ruled that "Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous,
the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other
person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while
carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried
on".
4

Consequently the polluting industries are "absolutely liable to compensate for the
harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the
underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to
remove sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected areas".
The "Polluter Pays" principle as interpreted by the Court means that the absolute
liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of
pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation
of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development"
and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the
cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
The court further stated that:
"according to this principle, the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the
offending industry. Sections 3 and 5 empower the Central Government to give directions
and take measures for giving effect to this principle. In all the circumstances of the case,
we think it appropriate that the task of determining the amount required for carrying out
the remedial measures, its recovery/realisation and the task of undertaking the remedial
measures is placed upon the Central Government in the light of the provisions of the
Environment [Protection] Act, 1986. It is of course, open to the Central Government to
take the help and assistance of State Government, R.P.C.B. or such other agency or
authority, as they think fit."
In M.C.Mehta V. UOI, SC reffered the case of Enviro-Legal Action and Vellore Citizens
case and ordered the Calcutta tanneries to relocate and pay compensation for the loss of
ecology/environment of the affected areas and the suffering of the residents.
In Vellore Citizen's case [16] , court held that:
The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have been accepted as part of
the law of the land. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life
and personal liberty. Article 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitutional are as under:
# Article 47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and
to improve public health. - The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and
the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its
primary duties and in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of
the consumption except from medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs
which are injurious to health.

# Article 48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests

and wild life. - The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
# Article 51A(g). To protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.
Apart from the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment there are
plenty of post-independence legislations on the subject but more relevant enactments for
our purpose are : The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water
Act), The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (the Air Act) and the
Environment Protection Act 1986 (the Environment Act). The Water Act provides for the
Constitution of the Central Pollution Control Board by the Central Government and the
Constitution of the State Pollution Control Boards by various State Governments in the
country. The Boards function under the control of the Governments concerned. The Water
Act prohibits the use of streams and wells for disposal of polluting matters. Also provides
for restrictions on outlets and discharge of effluents without obtaining consent from the
Board. Prosecution and penalties have been provided which include sentence of
imprisonment. The Air Act provides that the Central Pollution Control Board and the
State Pollution Control Boards constituted under the Water Act shall also perform the
powers and functions under the Air Act. The main function of the Boards, under the Air
Act, is to improve the quality of the air and to prevent, control and abate air pollution in
the country. We shall deal with the Environment Act in the later part of this judgment.
In view of the above mentioned constitutional and statutory provisions we have no
hesitation in holding that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are
part of the environmental law of the country.
Even otherwise once these principles are accepted as part of the Customary International
Law there would be no difficulty in accepting them as part of the domestic law. It is
almost accepted proposition of law that the rule of Customary International Law which
are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the
domestic law and shall be followed by the Courts of Law. To support we may refer to
Justice H.R. Khanna's opinion in Addl. Distt. Magistrate Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla
[17], Jolly George Varghese's case [18] and Gramophone Company's case. [19]
In the Kamalnath's case [20], court by considering the PPP as the law of the land, ordered
that:
"It is thus settled by this Court that one who pollutes the environment must pay to reverse
the damage caused by his acts." Court disposed this matter by giving a show cause notice
6

to the span motels, that, why Pollution-fine and damages be not imposed as directed by
us.
This case subsequently came up in front of the court in the year 2000 [21] and court
directed to the span motels that: "The powers of this Court under Article 32 are not
restricted and it can award damages in a PIL or a Writ Petition as has been held in a series
of decisions".
Henceforth, court directed a fresh notice to be issued to M/s. Span Motel to show cause
why in addition to damages, exemplary damage be not awarded for having committed the
acts set out and detailed in the main judgment. Finally in 2002 [22] , while granting
exemplary damages court held that:
"Liability to pay damages on the principle of 'polluter pays' in addition to damages,
exemplary damages for having committed the acts set out and detailed in the main
judgment. Considering the object underlying the award of exemplary damages to be to
serve a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner. So the quantum at Rs.
10 lakhs is fixed for the span motels."
V. Conclusion:
Its good that India that imbibed the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) in their Law of land.
And, it also had actually helped in imposing damages on the polluter but still the problem
with this principle is that it hasn't been implemented properly. If we look at the exemplary
damages granted to span motels doesn't serve the purpose of the exemplary damages. Ten
lakhs rupees is nothing for the big corporations like span motels. For them at least 10
crores Rs. exemplary damges should be given. And again if we look at the penalty
imposed in the Vellore Citizens case, then it just shocks me that how 10,000 rupees can
justify the pollution spreaded by the tanneries in the nearby areas. The Author personally
feels that this is not an effective way of fund raising. We should reconsider the criteria's
laid to decide the compensation amount. Atleast it should deter the polluters from
spreading pollution. This principle needs a strict interpretation from our judiciary with
immediate effect and we just can't afford any sort of delay in its proper implementation in
developing
country,
like
India.

PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

Basically, the ancient Roman Empire developed this legal theory i.e. Doctrine of the
Public Trust. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain
resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the
people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of
private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made
freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon
the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather
than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes.
Public trust doctrine serves two purposes: it mandates affirmative state action for
effective management of resources and empowers citizens to question ineffective
management of natural resources. It is a common law concept, defined and addressed
by academics in the United States and the United Kingdom. Various common properties;
including rivers, the seashore, and the air, are held by the government in trusteeship for
the uninterrupted use of the public. The sovereign could not, therefore, transfer public
trust properties to a private party if the grant would interfere with the public interest. The
public trust has been widely used and scrutinized in the United States, but its scope is still
uncertain. Various have been made to apply this doctrine to protect navigable and nonnavigable waters, public land sand parks, and to apply it to both public and private lands
and ecological resources. The Supreme Court of California has broadened the definition
of public trust by including ecological and aesthetic considerations. Although the public
trusts doctrine is not without its fair share of criticism it is being increasingly related to
sustainable development, the precautionary principle and bio-diversity protection. The
doctrine combines the guarantee of public access to public trust resources with a
requirement of public accountability in respect of decision-making regarding such
resources. Moreover, not only can it be used to protect the public from poor application
of planning law or environmental impact assessment, it also has an intergenerational
dimension.
The Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment evidences this
seminal proposition:
" The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and
especially representative samples of natural system, must be safeguarded for the benefit
of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as
appropriate... "

The Public Trust Doctrine can also be used as leverage during policy deliberations and
public scoping sessions and hearings. This forces agencies to prove that their actions are
not environmentally harmful to the extent that they will destroy a public resource. If the
agencies fail to provide a more environmentally benign alternative, then you can bring up
a Public Trust lawsuit. Although the court process may be long and arduous, many
important precedents have been established.
The Doctrine of Public Trust In India
The Public Trust Doctrine has its origins in Roman Law. It has been extended in recent
years, placing a duty on the state to hold environmental resources in trust for the benefit
of the public. At its widest, it could be used by the courts as a tool to protect the
environment from many kinds of degradation. In some countries, the doctrine has formed
the basis of environmental policy legislation, allowing private rights of action by citizens
for violations by the state (directly or indirectly) of the public trust.
The Rule of Law runs close to the rule of life and the Indian Constitution, in its humanist
vision, has made environmental-ecological preservation a fundamental value. The higher
jurisprudence of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life) embraces the protection and
preservation of nature's gift without which life ceases to be viable and human rights
become a simulacrum. In other words, this right to life under article 21 has been extended
to include the right to a healthy environment and the right to livelihood. The third aspect
of the right to life is the application of public trust doctrine to protect and preserve the
public land. When the Indian courts have applied the public trust doctrine, they have
considered it not only as an international law concept, but one, which is well established
in their national legal system.
Accepting public trust doctrine as a part of common law, the Indian courts have applied
this explicitly in three recent cases, the first one in 1997 and two cases in 1999 , including
the case under consideration. Articles 48A and 51A of the Constitution also furnish the
principles of jurisprudence, which are fundamental to our governance under the Rule of
Law.
The doctrine is first mentioned in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath and others where the Indian
Supreme Court applied public trust with regard to the protection and preservation of
natural resources. In this case, the State Government granted lease of riparian forestland
to a private company for commercial purpose. The purpose of the lease was to build a
motel at the bank of the River Beas. A report published in a national newspaper alleged
that the motel management interfered with the natural flow of the river in order to divert
its course and to save the motel from future floods. The Supreme Court initiated suo motu
9

action based on the newspaper item because the facts disclosed, if true, would be a
serious act of environmental degradation.
The Supreme court in M.C. Mehta stated that the Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests
on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and forests have such great
importance to the people as a whole that it would be unjustified to make them a subject of
private ownership . The court observed that:
Our Indian legal system, which is based on English common law, includes the public trust
doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources,
which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary
of the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a
trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for
public use cannot be converted into private ownership. As rivers, forests, minerals and
such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be
frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all
succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the
best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation. Thus,
the Public Trust doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The court also ruled that there is
no any justifiable reason to rule out the application of the public trust doctrine in all
ecosystems in India.
In this case, the Supreme Court was faced with the classic struggle between those
members of the public who would preserve our rivers, lakes and open lands in their
pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilities who find it
necessary to encroach to some extent upon open land.... It stated that the public bodies
should apply public trust doctrine when there is no legislation to protect the natural
resources.

In their view, applying the polluter pays principle, the Court directed the developer to pay
compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the
area. It had no difficulty in holding that the Himachal Pradesh government committed a
patent breach of public trust by leasing out the ecologically fragile land to be developed.

Chronologically, the second case on this subject is Th. Majra Singh v Indian Oil
Corporation, where the petitioner objected to the location of a plant for filling cylinders
with liquefied petroleum gas. It was held that the High Court can only examine whether
authorities have taken all precautions with a view to see that laws dealing with
10

environment and pollution have been given due care and attention. Though the case was
decided on the basis of the precautionary principle, it confirmed that the public trust
doctrine has become part of the Indian legal thought processes. In the High Court's
opinion, the doctrines is apart and parcel of Article 21 of the Constitution and that there
can be no dispute that the State is under an obligation to see that forests, lakes and
wildlife and environment are duly protected. According to the Court, the idea that the
public has a right to expect certain lands and natural areas to retain their natural
characteristics is finding its way into the law of the land.
In the third case, M.I. Builders v Radhey Shyam Sahu, the Supreme Court has applied the
public trust doctrine. Here, the Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika (i.e. Lucknow City
Corporation) granted permission to a private builder to construct an underground
shopping complex was against the municipal Act and Master plan of the city of Lucknow.
The builder was supposed to develop the site at its own cost and then to realize the cost
with profit not exceeding more than 10% of the investment in respect of each shop.
Under the terms of the agreement, full freedom was given to the builder to lease out the
shops as per its own terms and conditions to persons of its choice on behalf of the
Mahapalika. The builder was also given the right to sign the agreement on behalf of the
Mahapalika and was only required to a copy to the Mahapalika after its execution. Both
the builder and the Mahapalika were to be bound by the terms of that agreement.
When the matter was challenged, the High Court set aside and quashed the agreement
between Mahapalika and the builder, and the relevant order of the Mahapalika permitting
such construction. The Court ordered Mahapalika to restore the park to its original
position within a period of three months from the date of the judgment and until that was
done, to take adequate measures and to provide necessary safeguards and protections to
the users of the park. The High Court took the accounts of the fact that Mahapalika never
denied the historical importance of the park and the preservation or maintenance of the
park was necessary from environmental angle. However, the only reason advanced by
Mahapalika for the construction of the underground commercial complex was to ease the
congestion in the area. The High Court took judicial notice of the conditions prevailing at
the site and found that the construction of an underground market would further congest
the area. It added that the public purpose, which is alleged to be served by construction of
the underground commercial complex, seemed total illusory.
On appeal by the builders, the Supreme Court held that the terms of agreement showed
that the clauses of the agreement are unreasonable, unfair and atrocious. The Mahapalika,
as a trustee for the proper management of the park, has to be more cautious in dealing
with its properties. The Court added that the land of immense value had been handed over
to it to construct an underground shopping complex in violation of the public trust
11

doctrine. The maintenance of the park, because of its historical importance and
environmental necessity, was in itself a public purpose. Therefore, the construction of an
underground market in the grab of decongesting the area was wholly contrary and
prejudicial to the public purpose. By allowing the construction, Mahapalika has deprived
its residents, and also others, of the quality of life to which they were entitled to under the
Constitution and under the Municipal Act.
The agreement was opposed to public policy and not in the public interest. Mahapalika
allowed the commercial shopping complex to be build upon a public park in clear
defiance of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam 1959. In addition, the
Mahapalika violated the public trust doctrine and the Court ordered the demolition of the
unauthorized shopping complex.
The Supreme Court, in M.I. Builders reconfirmed that the public trust doctrine is
established in the Indian legal system and asserted that the public authorities should act as
trustees of natural resources. However, it is clear from all these cases that the court did
not confer any property right on the public under the trust. While applying the public trust
doctrine, the Court in all these cases, took account of either the polluter pays the principle
or the precautionary principle or both.
In the Kamal Nath case, the Supreme Court and in the Th. Majra Singh case, the High
court applied the public trust doctrine along with other principles such as the
precautionary principle and polluter pays principle. Moreover, in Kamal Nath case, the
Supreme Court directed, inter alia, that the lease be quashed and the full cost of
restoration of the land to its original natural condition be paid by the Motel.

The Court also ordered the Motel to remove all the construction on the riverbed and the
banks of the River Beas. However, in Th. Majra Singh, the High court found that the
Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) had taken all the precautions and followed all the
safeguards required by the law. Giving to the go ahead to the installation of the LRG
plant located in the vicinity of a polluted village, the Court ordered the IOC to take due
precautions, so that pollution is not caused to the environment and to plant fast growing
trees like poplar eucalyptus. In the M.I. Builders case, the Supreme Court ordered
Mahapalika to demolish the unauthorized shopping complex and to restore the park to its
original beauty. It is clear that in these cases, the Court adopted a balanced development
approach.
It is interesting to note that in the Kamal Nath case the Supreme Court held that even if
there is a separate and a specific law to deal with the issue before the Court, it may still
12

apply public trust doctrine. If there is no suitable legislation to preserve the natural
resources, the public authorities should take advantage of this doctrine in addition to the
fact that there was a branch of municipal law. Secondly the Supreme Court in
M.I.builders, however, stated that public trust doctrine has ?grown? from Article 21 of the
constitution. By attaching this doctrine to the fundamental right to life, the Supreme
Court appears to be willing to diversify the application of this doctrine. It seems likely
that the court would give precedence to right to life when the public trust doctrine, as a
part of right to a safe and healthy environment, is challenged by any other fundamental
rights. Thirdly by ordering the Mahapalika to restore the park to its original beauty, the
Supreme Court redefined the duties of a trustee to its beneficiaries the users of the park.
In effect, it aligned the local authorities duty as a trustee with the concept of intragenerational and inter-generational equity. Fourthly, the case came before the court as a
judicial review and not as challenge against the decision of the government from a
beneficiary. As this doctrine acts as a check upon administrative action by providing a
mechanism for judicial or resource allocation decisions. Therefore, public trust doctrine
could serve as an additional tool for environmental protection particularly where
administrative discretion has been abused.
Conclusion:
From the above discussions on the doctrine and various case laws, it is evident that the
state is not the owner of the natural resources in the country but a trustee who holds
fiduciary relationship with the people. By accepting this task the government is expected
to be loyal to the interests of its citizens and to discharge its duty with the interest of the
citizens at heart and involve them in decision-making process concerning the
management of natural resources in the country. The Public Trust Doctrine may provide
the means for increasing the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment laws.
Thus, under this doctrine, the state has a duty as a trustee under art. 48A to protect and
improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. While
applying art. 21 (right to life), the state is obliged to take account of art. 48A, a Directive
Principle of State Policy. The state's trusteeship duties has been expanded to include a
right to a healthy environment.

13