The Supreme Court is to examine whether the laws are reducing the number of wetlands in India

Image is for representational purposes only. | Photo credit: S. Subramanium

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 26, 2026) agreed to examine a challenge to the constitutional validity of the definition of “wetlands” in the Wetlands Conservation and Management Rules 2017 for arbitrarily excluding most man-made, artificial and historically developed wetlands from environmental protection and diluting accountability through decentralized oversight.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued a formal notice to the Union government on a petition filed jointly by a group of environmental activists and experts led by Ravindra Sinha that the definition of “wetlands” in Rule 2(g) of the 2017 Act is inconsistent with India’s binding international obligations under the 1971 Ramsar Convention.

The Convention expressly covered both natural and man-made wetlands, whether permanent or temporary, without distinction, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Anindita Mitra submitted for the petitioners.

Important water bodies

“The definition under the 2017 rules will have a catastrophic impact on 39 man-made wetlands out of a total of 94 Ramsar wetlands located in India, which will lose their status as protected wetlands. By excluding exemptions for water bodies developed for drinking water, irrigation, aquaculture, salt production, recreation and related purposes, the removal of an essential framework of Indian environment law has substantial effect on the protection of the environment.” the petitioners submitted.

The petition said the 2010 rules, which replaced the 2017 rules, included man-made wetlands, including all forms of reservoirs.

Rule 2(g) of the 2010 Rules protected water bodies/reservoirs specially constructed for drinking water purposes and structures used exclusively for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation purposes.

The dilution witnessed in the 2017 rules violated the principle of non-regression, which prohibits governments from weakening existing legal protections.

“While the 2010 rules adopted the Ramsar definition in full, created central and state wetland authorities and imposed explicit bans on reclamation and permanent construction, the 2017 framework dilutes these safeguards by removing the central authority, deleting the schedule of prohibited activities and closing the definitional scope of wetlands,” said Mr Sankaranarayanan.

The petition highlighted that the Supreme Court’s own judgment in MK Balakrishnan v. Union of India (reported in 2017) was violated.

“This court has directed that all 2,01,503 wetlands identified in the National Wetlands Atlas be protected… Instead of implementing these directions, the Union government has superseded the 2010 rules and introduced a narrower definition that defeats the very mandate of this court,” the petitioners said.

Wetland identification method

The 2017 rules also departed from the established practice of identifying and listing wetlands in national wetland inventories based on their functional characteristics, including hydrology, soil saturation, biodiversity support, flood mitigation, and groundwater recharge, rather than their origin, i.e. human or natural.

India’s own National Wetlands Atlas of 2011 and the National Wetlands Inventory and Assessment prepared by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) classify natural and man-made wetlands together as part of a single ecological continuum, the petition said.

Published – 26 May 2026 21:47 IST