MONETIZING THE COMMONS: A CONSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE OF STATE-SPONSORED TREE FELLING AND THE DILUTION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

Abstract

The Public Trust Doctrine was incorporated into Indian environmental jurisprudence to ensure that the State exercises its authority over natural resources as a constitutional trustee rather than their unrestricted owner. Despite the doctrine's continued judicial recognition, recent instances of state-authorised tree felling have exposed growing tensions between developmental governance and constitutional environmental obligations. The immediate inspiration for this study emerged from a widely discussed satirical remark made by actor and television host Shekhar Suman on Shekhar Tonite: "Don't worry, just go to sleep... When all the trees are cut and the forests are gone, the government will definitely give you subsidized masks and discounted oxygen cylinders." While expressed through humour, the statement reflects an emerging public perception that environmental governance increasingly responds to ecological degradation rather than preventing it. Existing scholarship has extensively examined the Public Trust Doctrine, environmental impact assessment, sustainable development and judicial intervention; however, comparatively little attention has been devoted to analysing state-authorised tree felling as a constitutional phenomenon through the lens of the Public Trust Doctrine. Addressing this gap, the present study adopts a mixed research design, combining doctrinal analysis of constitutional provisions, environmental statutes and judicial precedents with a qualitative examination of three contemporary case studies Hasdeo-Arand in Chhattisgarh, the Delhi Ridge tree-felling controversy and the Mumbai Coastal Road Project. The analysis draws upon official environmental clearances, government reports, statutory records and judicial proceedings to evaluate whether contemporary executive decision-making remains consistent with the fiduciary obligations imposed by Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution. The article argues that environmental governance has increasingly shifted towards procedural compliance through statutory approvals and compensatory mechanisms, often at the expense of substantive constitutional accountability. It concludes that the continuing legitimacy of the Public Trust Doctrine depends upon its meaningful implementation in administrative decision-making rather than its repeated affirmation in judicial pronouncements alone.