Author: Dr. Manisha Banik, Post-doctoral Lecturer, at the University of Regensburg.

Introduction

The “Godawan Case” (M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India) also known as “The Great Indian Bustard Case” has undoubtedly reshaped the trajectory of Indian climate protection laws. This case is important not only for recognising right against adverse effect of climate change as a fundamental right but also for striking a balance between conservation and sustainability. The Supreme Court of India while doing so has once again emphasized that it is the responsibility of State to preserve and use natural resources diligently while promoting sustainability. Now where state responsibility comes, it becomes imperative to mention the Doctrine of Public Trust. In this context, the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is emerging as a powerful legal principle, which mandates that certain natural resources such as air, water, and forests are held by the state in trust for the benefit of the public. This doctrine imposes a duty upon governments to preserve these resources and prevent their exploitation for private or commercial gain, thereby ensuring equitable access and protection for all. In this article, we delve into the Godawan case, exploring its implications, judicial reasoning, and the broader impact it has had on the interpretation of the Public Trust Doctrine.

Public Trust Doctrine and its Key elements

The public trust doctrine was originated in Roman law in the 6th century with the text that “by the law of nature these things are common to all mankind: the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea.” It was later incorporated into English law in the 13th century as part of the Magna Carta.

Key elements of the doctrine

• Fiduciary Duty: The government has a legal and moral obligation (a fiduciary duty) to act as a trustee for the public. 
• Public Ownership: Certain natural resources are held in common by the public and not subject to private ownership. 
• Protection of Resources: The government has a positive duty to protect and preserve these resources from harm, degradation, and extinction. 
• Public Access and Use: The doctrine ensures that the public has fair and equal access to these resources
• Preservation for Future Generations: A core principle is that these resources must be managed to ensure their availability for future generations, not just the current one.

Case Background and outcomes

The “Godawan case” is a significant milestone in the climate law jurisprudence of India. The case was centred on the preservation of two endangered bird species the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican from extinction caused by overhead power lines in Gujarat and Rajasthan. In its initial order the supreme Court ordered that a large part of the GIB habitat’s overhead power lines be moved underground while recognising rights against the adverse impacts of climate change as a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Later, the Supreme Court modified its earlier order, balancing conservation of biodiversity with sustainable development. Thus, recognising international climate commitment of India towards energy transition.

Application of the Doctrine (PTD) in the case

The judgement in the Godawan case sets an example where the doctrine of Public Trust though not mentioned explicitly but in spirit was used as a double-edged sword to balance between conservation and sustainability. The Supreme Court in its initial order underlining the state’s obligation to protect endangered species and their habitats reinforced that the preservation of biodiversity is not merely a statutory duty but a constitutional mandate. The court’s approach in the Godawan case drew inspiration from earlier landmark judgments, such as the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in the M.C. Mehta cases, which established the state’s duty to protect forests, rivers, and wildlife.

Implication of the Doctrine through Conservation and Corporate Environmental Responsibility

Paragraph 2 of the latest Judgement dated 19th December 2025 of this case mentions that “its survival is a shared cultural responsibility, as the bird represents not just a species but the unique natural heritage and resilience of the arid landscapes”. While Paragraph 4 mentions that “The urgent conservation efforts, including the state-led ‘Project Godawan,’ (Project GIB) seek to protect this cultural and ecological emblem from extinction, ensuring that the regal bird continues to grace the golden sands of the state for future generations.” Thus, emphasizing on protection of resources, shared responsibility and preservation for future generation which are also the key elements of Public Trust Doctrine.

The judgement of the Godawan case has also increased the scope of the Public Trust Doctrine from public to private property. Supreme Court emphasized that Corporate Social Responsibility includes Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Private property is also a trust. Further the Court while interpreting Duty of the Directors highlights the broader scope of Section 166(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, and reiterates that “Directors are now legally mandated to act in good faith not just for members, but for the “best interests of the company, its employees, the shareholders, the community, and for the protection of environment.” The Court also held that by categorizing ecological activities as “social” responsibility, the law acknowledges that as human beings, we cannot “own” or “use” environment for “our purpose”. Thus, extending the ambit of application of Public Trust Doctrine to private entities while protecting the conservation of an endangered species.

Implication of the Doctrine through Sustainability measures against climate change

The concepts of sustainability and states responsibility to take measures against adverse effects of climate change are intrinsic key elements of the Doctrine of Public Trust. In this context it becomes pertinent to highlight how the principles of PTD were used by the Supreme Court to achieve a balance between conservation and sustainability. The Court held that while protecting the GIB, the focus should be on installing bird diverters rather than mandatory undergrounding in all areas, which could prevent the fulfillment of the international commitments of India in reducing non-reusable energy and achieving the goals towards sustainability. The Judiciary invoked and recognised the obligation of the State towards implementation of effective measures to curve the adverse effects of climate change.

Conclusion

The Court’s decision in the Godawan case stands out for its balanced approach, which was reached through principles such as mutual ownership, coexistence, trust, conservation, and sustainable development. Through the lens of Public Trust Doctrine, the Godawan Case highlights the evolving nature of environmental challenges and how the principles enshrined in this doctrine can be crucial in achieving a just and sustainable approach at the same time.