New Delhi, May 26 The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a plea alleging that the definition of 'wetland' under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, was "vague".
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union of India and the National Wetlands Committee while seeking their responses by August 10.
"We are limiting our notice to the vagueness of the definition," the bench observed.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by biologist Ravindra Sinha and others challenging the constitutional validity of the definition of 'wetland' under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules defines a 'wetland' as an area of marsh, fen, peatland, or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules diluted the protection available to wetlands.
This has resulted in a large number of ecologically sensitive sites being excluded from regulatory safeguards, he said, adding that 44 out of the 99 sites have gone out of regulatory safeguards.
The petition contended that the exclusionary portion of Rule 2(g) effectively takes away protection from several wetlands by excluding river channels, paddy fields, human-made water bodies or tanks constructed for drinking water purposes, and structures created for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation.
The plea sought a declaration that Rule 2(g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
