Overview
- The Supreme Court limited its initial review to the vagueness of Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and on May 26, 2026 issued notice to the Union of India and the National Wetlands Committee with responses due by August 10, 2026.
- Petitioners led by biologist Ravindra Sinha argue the 2017 Rule narrowed the legal meaning of “wetland,” and counsel told the court this change immediately removes protection for dozens of sites.
- The challenge says the rule explicitly excludes river channels, paddy fields, many human‑made tanks and waterbodies built for drinking water, irrigation, aquaculture, salt production and recreation, which petitioners say undermines prior protections.
- Counsel presented figures claiming the 2017 definition would drop protection for large numbers of sites — examples cited include 44 of 99 identified sites and 39 of 94 Ramsar wetlands that could lose safeguards — and warned states have not completed the new, lengthier notification process.
- The petition invokes Articles 14, 19 and 21 and points to the 2010 rules, prior Supreme Court directions to protect 201,503 wetlands and India’s Ramsar commitments, making the case both a technical vagueness review and a test of whether environmental safeguards were unlawfully weakened.