Supreme Court To Examine Validity of “Wetlands" Definition Under Wetlands Rules, 2017
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 which defines “wetlands”. Court has been told the definition arbitrarily excludes most man-made, artificial, and historically developed wetlands from statutory protection.
A CJI Surya Kant led bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi has sought the Centre'a response in the plea after hearing arguments made by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for petitioner and Biologist Ravinder Sinha.
As per Sinha, the exclusionary definition is also inconsistent with India’s binding international obligations under the Ramsar Convention, 1971, which expressly includes both natural and artificial wetlands, whether permanent or temporary, without distinction. India acceded to the Convention in 1982 and notified the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 to give domestic effect to these obligations.
"The Preamble of the Wetland Rules, 2017 itself acknowledges India’s commitment under the Ramsar Convention to ensure conservation and wise use of all wetlands within its territory. Yet, by introducing exclusions unknown to the Convention, the 2017 Rules create disharmony with international law, contrary to Article 51(c) of the Constitution, and in violation of the principle laid down by this Hon’ble Court, and the very object of the 2017 Rules itself," the plea argues.
Court has been told the impugned definition will have the disastrous impact of 39 manmade wetlands, out of a total of 94 Ramsar Convention wetlands located in India losing their status as protected wetlands. By carving out exclusions for waterbodies constructed for drinking water, irrigation, aquaculture, salt production, recreation, and allied purposes, the Impugned Rule has the effect of removing a substantial majority of India’s wetlands from the protective framework of environmental law, the bench has been told.
Referring to the definition of ‘wetlands’ in Rule 2(g) of the 2010 Wetland Rules which explicitly includes “manmade wetlands” including all forms of tanks and makes no exception for certain type of human made wetlands, such as “human-made water bodies/tanks specifically constructed for drinking water purposes and structures specifically constructed for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation purposes”, which are explicitly excluded under the 2017 Rules, the plea argued that such dilution violates the principle of non-regression, which is an integral component of Indian environmental jurisprudence.
"The Impugned Rule violates Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an irrational distinction between natural and artificial wetlands, a false distinction that has no scientific, ecological, or legal basis. Both categories perform identical ecological functions and are equally indispensable to environmental security, there is no reasonable differentiation. The exclusion is therefore manifestly arbitrary," court has been told.
The plea field through AOR Anindita Mitra further argues wetlands constitute essential ecological infrastructure, and their exclusion exposes populations to flooding, water scarcity, pollution, and loss of climate resilience. . The State’s abdication of its duty of protection also violates the public trust doctrine, which obligates the State to safeguard all ecological resources held for present and future generations, it adds.
It is stated that Impugned Rule is also ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which authorises subordinate legislation only for the protection and improvement of the environment as it withdraws protection from major ecological resources defeats the object of the Act itself and is therefore ultra vires the present statute.
"The cumulative effect of the Impugned Rule is the creation of a fragmented and incoherent regulatory regime, administrative uncertainty, inconsistent enforcement, and outcomes that are ecologically destructive and constitutionally impermissible. The Impugned Rule undermines India’s commitments to sustainable development, the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and sound environmental governance," the petition argues.
Case Title: Ravindra Sinha vs Union of India
Bench: Cji Kant and Justice Bagchi
Hearing Date: May 26, 2026