Wetlands (Conservation & Management) Rules, 2017 – r.2(1)(g) – ‘Wetland’ – Whether the Futala Tank classifies within the meaning and definition of r.2(1)(g):
Held: Futala Lake is not classifiable within the statutory definition of ‘wetland’ in r.2(1)(g) – The lake is a man-made waterbody constructed for drinking water and for irrigation purpose – The definition excludes human made waterbodies and those constructed inter alia for irrigation purposes, as rightly held by High Court in the impugned judgment– r.4 of the 2017 Rules which provides for the restrictions of activity in the ‘wetland’ would not apply stricto sensu to Futala Tank as the Lake falls outside the statutory definition – High Court gave certain directions including that the respondent shall ensure that the spirit of r.4(2)(vi) of the 2017 Rules will be respected and structure of any permanent nature within the lake would not be undertaken; the activities nearby the Futala Lake does not lead to any damage to the Lake and further that the entire waterbed along with its recreational and beautification structures are kept clean and properly maintained – Applying the restrictions and rigours of r.4 of 2017 Rules and in ensuring its relevance to the waterbodies or wetlands, even if they are not covered within the statutory definition, there is a recognition of precautionary principle and doctrine of public trust, which is a judicial foresight and a salutary approach – Various directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment, are only an extension of such foresighted thought acted up – No error in the judgment of the High Court. [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.