Supreme Court Questions Wetlands Rules: Is Definition Too Vague?

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre for a response to a plea challenging the definition of 'wetland' under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. The petition argues that the definition is vague and has resulted in excluding several ecologically sensitive wetlands from protection.

The Supreme Court is demanding answers from the Centre regarding a petition that challenges the definition of 'wetland' as outlined in the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, citing it as 'vague'.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, has issued a notice to the Union of India and the National Wetlands Committee, requesting their response by August 10. The bench is focusing its query on the alleged vagueness of the wetland definition.

Biologist Ravindra Sinha and others have filed a petition questioning the constitutional validity of the wetland definition, arguing that it excludes several ecologically sensitive areas from being legally protected. This gap has reportedly led to 44 out of 99 sites losing regulatory safeguards. The plea further seeks to declare part of these rules as ultra vires the Constitution of India.