Background
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, following a petition alleging that the law arbitrarily excludes a vast majority of human-made and artificial wetlands from environmental protection.
Key Facts
- Rule 2(g) of the 2017 Rules is at the centre of the legal challenge
- 39 out of 94 designated Ramsar wetlands in India risk losing legally protected status
- The 2017 Rules replaced the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010
- The 2017 framework removed the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority (CWRA)
- State Wetland Authorities (SWAs) now hold decentralized identification powers
- ISRO's National Wetland Inventory and Assessment provides mapping standards
The Definitional Dispute
Ramsar Convention (1971) Compliance
The petition argues that Rule 2(g) of the 2017 Rules violates India's international obligations under the Ramsar Convention, which explicitly mandates protection of:
- Natural wetlands
- Artificial/constructed wetlands
- Permanent wetlands
- Temporary wetlands
The Convention requires no distinction between natural and artificial water bodies for conservation purposes.
Exclusions Under 2017 Rules
The 2017 framework carves out strict exclusions for water bodies constructed for:
- Drinking water supply
- Irrigation
- Aquaculture
- Salt production
- Recreation purposes
These exclusions potentially strip protection from human-made structures like:
- Tanks and reservoirs
- Complex irrigation structures
- Traditional water harvesting systems
Violation of Legal Principles
Principle of Non-Regression
The petition highlights that the 2017 framework weakened existing legal protections established by the predecessor 2010 Rules, which successfully included human-made tanks, reservoirs, and complex irrigation structures.
The principle of non-regression in environmental law holds that existing environmental protections should not be diluted or weakened.
Decentralization Concerns
Unlike the 2010 Wetlands Framework which retained:
- Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority (CWRA)
- Explicit list of prohibited activities
The 2017 Rules decentralized wetland identification powers to State Wetland Authorities (SWAs), enabling states to potentially exploit definitional loopholes and declassify ecologically sensitive wetlands for infrastructure and real estate projects.
Contempt of Judicial Precedents
The petition highlights that the current rules directly subvert the Supreme Court's mandate in the landmark case:
M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India (2017)
- The Supreme Court explicitly ordered statutory protection of all wetlands mapped in the National Wetland Atlas
- The 2017 framework allegedly contradicts this judicial mandate
Key Conflict: Origin vs. Function
The 2017 framework shifts from identifying wetlands by functional characteristics:
- Hydrology
- Soil saturation
- Biodiversity support
- Groundwater recharge
Instead, it focuses on origin (natural vs. artificial), which contradicts ISRO's National Wetland Inventory and Assessment mapping standards that prioritize functional characteristics.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
Relevant Constitutional Provisions
- Article 48A (Directive Principles): State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment
- Article 51A(g): Fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment
- Article 21: Right to life includes right to clean environment
International Obligations
- Ramsar Convention (1971): International treaty for wetland conservation
- India is a signatory committed to protecting all wetland types
Significance for India
- Ecological Impact: Wetlands provide critical ecosystem services including groundwater recharge, biodiversity support, and flood control
- Legal Compliance: The review could ensure alignment with international commitments
- Governance: Addresses concerns about centralized vs. decentralized environmental governance
- Precedent: Establishes judicial scrutiny of environmental rule-making
Ramsar Sites in India
India has designated 94 Ramsar sites, covering approximately 1 million hectares. These sites face potential vulnerability due to the definitional exclusions in the 2017 Rules, with 39 sites at particular risk.