Supreme Court to examine validity of 2017 Wetlands Rules diluting wetland protection
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a challenge to the constitutional validity of the definition of 'wetlands' in the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. Petitioners argue that Rule 2(g) arbitrarily excludes most human-made, artificial, and historically developed wetlands from environmental protection, thereby diluting accountability and violating India's obligations under the Ramsar Convention, 1971. The exclusion of waterbodies constructed for drinking water, irrigation, aquaculture, and other allied purposes is seen as removing a substantial majority of wetlands from protective frameworks. This dilution is alleged to violate the principle of non-regression and departs from functional characteristics-based identification of wetlands.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court will examine the constitutional validity of the 'wetlands' definition in the 2017 Wetlands Rules.
- Petitioners argue that the rules arbitrarily exclude many human-made wetlands from environmental protection.
- The challenged definition is seen as inconsistent with India's obligations under the Ramsar Convention, 1971.
- The exclusion of certain waterbodies from protection is alleged to violate the principle of non-regression.
- The rules depart from functional characteristics-based identification of wetlands, focusing instead on origin.
Exam Facts
- The challenge is against the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 2(g).
- The petition argues inconsistency with India's obligations under the Ramsar Convention, 1971.
- The petitioners claim 39 human-made wetlands out of 94 Ramsar Convention wetlands could lose protected status.
- The principle of non-regression, prohibiting weakening existing legal protection, is invoked.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.