The Supreme Court sought the Central government’s response on a petition challenging the Wetlands Rules, 2017 definition of “wetland,” with petitioners alleging vagueness weakened environmental safeguards for ecologically sensitive areas, while directing the Union government and National Wetlands Committee to respond by August 10.
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Central government on a petition challenging the definition of the term “wetland” under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, with the petitioners arguing that the existing definition is vague and has weakened environmental safeguards for ecologically sensitive areas.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union government and the National Wetlands Committee, directing them to file their responses by August 10.
ALSO READ: Demolition of Ajmer’s Seven Wonders Park: Begins 6 Months After Supreme Court Order
While issuing notice, the Bench clarified that, at this stage, the Court would examine the limited issue relating to the alleged ambiguity in the statutory definition of wetlands.
The bench observed,
“We are limiting our notice to the vagueness of the definition,”
The petition has been filed by noted biologist Ravindra Sinha along with other petitioners, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
Under Rule 2(g), a “wetland” is defined as an area of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary. However, the petitioners contend that the rule contains broad exclusions that leave many environmentally important water bodies outside the scope of legal protection.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued before the Court that the 2017 Rules substantially diluted the protection regime that previously existed for wetlands in India.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Strikes Down Fee Based on Building Area Under Paddy Land Act
According to the petitioners, the present framework has resulted in several ecologically fragile wetlands being excluded from regulatory safeguards.
The submission stated,
“adding that 44 out of the 99 sites have gone out of regulatory safeguards,”
The plea specifically challenges the exclusionary clauses contained in Rule 2(g), which remove certain categories of water bodies from the definition of wetlands. These exclusions include river channels, paddy fields, human-made tanks created for drinking water purposes, and water bodies developed for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation activities.
The petitioners argue that these exclusions are arbitrary and undermine the objective of wetland conservation, especially at a time when rapid urbanisation, pollution and climate change are threatening fragile ecosystems across the country.
The plea further contends that wetlands perform critical ecological functions, including groundwater recharge, flood control, biodiversity conservation and climate regulation. According to the petitioners, weakening regulatory protection for such areas could lead to irreversible environmental damage.
The petition therefore seeks a declaration that Rule 2(g) of the 2017 Rules is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The challenge comes amid growing concerns over shrinking wetlands and increasing encroachments on lakes, marshlands and other water bodies in several parts of the country. Environmental experts have repeatedly warned that inadequate legal protection and vague classification standards have contributed to large-scale degradation of wetland ecosystems.
The Supreme Court will now examine whether the definition and exclusions contained in the 2017 Rules are legally sustainable and whether they compromise constitutional protections relating to environmental preservation and the right to life.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE