Environmental activists challenge validity of Wetlands rules in SC

Why in News?

The Supreme Court of India issued notice to the Union of India and the National Wetlands Committee, seeking a response on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. 

What are Wetlands?

• Wetlands are ecosystems where water is the primary factor controlling the environment and the associated plant and animal life.
• According to the Ramsar Convention, wetlands include: Marshes, Swamps, Peatlands, Floodplains, Mangroves, Estuaries, Lakes, Coral reefs & Human-made wetlands such as reservoirs and fish ponds. 
• Ecological Functions of Wetlands: Groundwater recharge, Flood moderation, Carbon sequestration, Water purification, Biodiversity conservation, Climate change adaptation & Livelihood support for local communities

Wetlands are often referred to as the “kidneys of the Earth” because of their role in filtering pollutants and maintaining ecological balance.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands:

• The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands was adopted in 1971, in Ramsar, Iran, and came into force in 1975. 
• It is the only global intergovernmental treaty dedicated exclusively to wetland conservation and sustainable use. 
• India has ratified the convention, thereby committing to the wise use of all wetlands within its territory. It implies maintaining ecological character using ecosystem-based approaches within the context of sustainable development.

India currently has 99 designated Ramsar Sites spread across 28 states and union territories, covering over 1.36 million hectares.

Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010:

• The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, were notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 
• The rules were India’s first comprehensive legal framework for protecting, managing, and preventing the degradation of wetlands. 
• Key Highlights:
  • Established the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority (CWRA) under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, making it a highly centralised governing body.
  • The rules regulated only specific wetlands identified by the Central Government or those selected based on six broad criteria. 
  • Activities in or around regulated wetlands, such as dredging or extracting resources, require prior clearance from the CWRA.
  • CWRA was widely criticised by environmentalists and state governments for being heavily bureaucratic, slow in granting approvals, and inadequately decentralising power to local authorities.

Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017: 

The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 are a regulatory framework under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 

• Decentralised Management: The rules replace the central regulatory authority with a decentralised structure, establishing a State Wetlands Authority (SWA) in each State and Union Territory. Headed by the State’s Environment Minister, the SWA includes experts in wetland ecology, hydrology, fisheries, and socio-economics.
• National Wetland Committee (NWC): Replaced the central regulatory authority and now acts in an advisory capacity to guide state bodies.
• Digital Inventory: The rules mandate digital wetland inventories and require states to draft continuous conservation and management plans.

What is the Present controversy?

• The dispute lies in Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. 
• Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules defines a ‘wetland’ as an area of marsh, fen, peatland, or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary. 
• Exclusionary Criteria: The definition of what constitutes a “wetland” explicitly strips away protections from protection from several wetlands by excluding river channels, paddy fields, human-made water bodies or tanks constructed for drinking water purposes, and structures created for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation.

The plea sought a declaration that Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The narrow definition violates the principle of non-regression by removing foundational protections for these ecosystems. 

Impact on Ramsar Sites: This exclusionary rule strips regulatory protections from 44 of India’s 99 Ramsar Sites (wetlands of international importance), making them vulnerable to ecological degradation.

Legal and Constitutional Dimensions: 

• Article 21: The right to life includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. Unprotected wetlands expose communities to flooding, water scarcity, and pollution, allegedly violating this fundamental right.
• Articles 14 & 19: The petition also seeks a declaration that Rule 2(g) is ultra vires Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedom), arguing the vague definition creates arbitrary exclusions.
• Non-regression principle: Environmental law prohibits the state from rolling back existing protections. Replacing the broader 2010 definition with the narrower 2017 one allegedly violates this principle, which the Supreme Court has recognised.
• International obligations: India’s binding commitments under the Ramsar Convention require protection of listed wetlands. A domestic rule that strips protection from 44 Ramsar Sites may conflict with these treaty obligations.
• EPA 1986 basis: Both sets of rules are framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The subordinate legislation must not violate the parent statute’s intent.

Way Forward:

• The Supreme Court should harmonise Rule 2(g) with India’s Ramsar obligations by either restoring or improving upon the broader 2010 definition.
• State Wetland Authorities must be strengthened with technical capacity, funding, and accountability mechanisms so decentralisation delivers conservation outcomes rather than diluting them.
• A comprehensive and inclusive statutory definition of wetlands should be legislated rather than left to subordinate rules, providing greater legal certainty.
• The National Wetland Atlas should be used as the authoritative baseline for protection, with satellite-based periodic updates and mandatory ground-truthing by state governments.
• Community-based wetland management, already recommended under the Ramsar Convention’s “wise use” principle, must be integrated into the regulatory framework to balance ecological protection with livelihood security.

India should align domestic wetland law more explicitly with its Ramsar commitments, following the model of the Biodiversity Act, which incorporates international treaty obligations into domestic legislation. 

PDF