A new Supreme Court case targets India's 2017 Wetlands Rules, exposing a massive legal loophole that leaves the majority of the nation's waterbodies unprotected.

The Supreme Court, under a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant, is examining a challenge to the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. The petition argues that the current legal framework severely dilutes environmental accountability through decentralized oversight.

The Ramsar Convention Conflict

The core issue lies in Rule 2(g) of the 2017 law. Petitioners state it violates India’s binding international obligations under the 1971 Ramsar Convention, which strictly protects both natural and artificial wetlands without distinction.

The 2017 amendment systematically excludes waterbodies built for specific purposes:

• Exclusion Criteria: Man-made spaces used for drinking water, irrigation, aquaculture, salt production, and recreation are stripped of protection.
• Sites At Risk: Out of 94 total Ramsar Convention wetlands in India, 39 human-made wetlands face losing their protected status.

By focusing on the origin (natural vs. artificial) rather than functional traits, the rule effectively removes the majority of India's wetlands from environmental safeguarding.

Try this :

Consider the following statements:
Statement I: The challenge to the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 is based on the argument that the Rules distinguish between natural and artificial wetlands in determining protection.
Statement II: Under the Ramsar Convention, protection is extended to both natural and artificial wetlands.

Which one of the following is correct?

A. Both Statement I and Statement II are correct, and Statement II is the correct explanation of Statement I.
B. Both Statement I and Statement II are correct, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.
C. Statement I is correct, but Statement II is incorrect.
D. Statement I is incorrect, but Statement II is correct.