Supreme Court Questions Vagueness in Wetland Definition Under 2017 Rules
Supreme Court Seeks Government's Response
File image of Dorabeel Wetland (Photo: AT)
New Delhi, May 26: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court requested the Centre to respond to a petition that claims the definition of “wetland” in the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, is ambiguous.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued a notice to the Union Government and the National Wetlands Committee, asking for their replies by August 10.
“Our notice is focused on the ambiguity of the definition,” the bench remarked.
The court was addressing a petition from biologist Ravindra Sinha and others, who are challenging the constitutional legitimacy of the “wetland” definition in the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
According to Rule 2(g), a “wetland” encompasses areas of marsh, fen, peatland, or water, whether they are natural or artificial, and can be either permanent or temporary.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued that the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules have weakened the protections for wetlands.
He noted that this has led to numerous ecologically sensitive areas being removed from regulatory protections, with 44 out of 99 sites losing such safeguards.
The petition asserts that the exclusionary aspects of Rule 2(g) effectively strip protections from various wetlands by omitting river channels, paddy fields, human-made water bodies or tanks for drinking water, and structures designed for aquaculture, salt production, recreation, and irrigation.
The petitioners are seeking a declaration that Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.