ANAND ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P.(C) No.-000304 - 2018

Attorney(S)

ROHIT KUMAR SINGH
GURMEET SINGH MAKKER

Acts

sub-rule (6)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This order arises from a cluster of public interest writ petitions before the Supreme Court of India concerning wetlands, including Writ Petition (Civil) No. 304 of 2018, Anand Arya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 230 of 2001, and W.P.(C) No. 302 of 2020, all listed in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL-W) category. Various interlocutory applications for intervention, impleadment, and directions are also mentioned.

The Court records updated data from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) showing an increase in the number of wetlands in India (over 2.25 hectares) from 2,01,503 (pre-2017) to 2,31,195 as per the Space Application Center Atlas (SAC Atlas), 2021. The Court notes that, under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, the next statutory step after identification of wetlands is “ground truthing” (on-site inspection by State teams) and demarcation of wetland boundaries.

The Court observes that ground truthing has been neglected by almost all States, except the State of Punjab to some extent, and that virtually no State has taken steps for demarcation of wetland boundaries. It further notes that State and Union Territory Wetland Authorities have been constituted under Rule 5 of the 2017 Rules and reproduces Rule 5 in detail, setting out their powers and functions.

The order also revisits an earlier direction dated 03.04.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 230 of 2001, under which 15 High Courts were requested to monitor the management of Ramsar Convention wetland sites within their jurisdictions by treating an affidavit of the Union of India as a suo motu public interest petition. Since that earlier order, the number of Ramsar sites in India has increased from 26 to 85, now covering 23 States and Union Territories and bringing 59 additional sites under the jurisdiction of five more High Courts (Patna, Bombay, Karnataka, Gauhati including Aizawl Bench, and Uttarakhand). The current order reproduces the complete updated list of 85 Ramsar sites and issues further directions linked to High Court monitoring.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the State and Union Territory Wetland Authorities are under a statutory obligation, under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, to carry out ground truthing and demarcation of the boundaries of all wetlands identified for their State/UT in the SAC Atlas, 2021, and what directions are required to secure compliance.
How the Supreme Court’s earlier directions dated 03.04.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 230 of 2001 concerning High Court monitoring of Ramsar Convention sites should be continued and adapted in light of the increase in the number of Ramsar sites from 26 to 85 and their spread across additional High Courts.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Order dated 03.04.2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 230 of 2001	The Supreme Court had directed its Registry to send an affidavit of the Union of India, along with prior orders, to 15 named High Courts and had requested the Chief Justices of those High Courts to treat the affidavit as a suo motu public interest petition. The High Courts were asked to monitor the management and proper maintenance of Ramsar Convention wetland sites within their jurisdiction, with liberty to appoint an amicus curiae where necessary.	The Court treats the present directions as a continuation of the 03.04.2017 order. In view of the increase in Ramsar sites from 26 to 85 and their coverage of more States/UTs, the Court now directs the Registrar General of the Supreme Court to send the complete updated list of 85 Ramsar sites to all High Courts, including five additional High Courts (Patna, Bombay, Karnataka, Gauhati including Aizawl Bench, and Uttarakhand), and requests them similarly to treat the affidavit as a suo motu public interest litigation, appoint an amicus if necessary, and ensure the proper maintenance of Ramsar sites within their jurisdictions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court begins by noting the substantial increase in the number of wetlands (over 2.25 hectares) recorded by ISRO, from 2,01,503 to 2,31,195 between the earlier assessment and the 2021 SAC Atlas. It treats this updated remote-sensing data as a trigger for the next prescribed steps under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.

Referring to the Rules and associated guidelines, the Court identifies “ground truthing” as the mandatory next step after identification of wetlands. Ground truthing is described as the actual on-ground inspection of the identified wetlands by a State-constituted team. The Court observes that this process has been neglected by almost all States, with only some limited progress in Punjab. Similarly, it notes that States have done “almost nothing” regarding demarcation of wetland boundaries.

To locate responsibility for these failures, the Court turns to Rule 5 of the 2017 Rules, reproducing it at length. Rule 5 shows that:

The Central Government has constituted State Wetland Authorities in each State and Union Territory Wetland Authorities in each Union Territory.
These Authorities may co-opt additional members and are vested with extensive powers and functions, including: preparing lists of all wetlands and those to be notified; recommending wetlands for regulation; preparing a comprehensive digital inventory within one year and updating it every ten years; developing lists of regulated and permitted activities; defining conservation and “wise use” strategies; reviewing integrated management plans; ensuring enforcement of relevant rules and laws; coordinating implementation of management plans; acting as nodal authorities for wetland-related bodies; and issuing necessary directions for conservation and sustainable management.
The concerned State or Union Territory department is to act as nodal department and secretariat and provide all necessary support.
Within ninety days of publication of the Rules, each Authority must constitute a technical committee and a grievance committee, with specified minimum meeting frequencies for these committees and for the Authority itself.

On this basis, the Court characterises ground truthing and demarcation of wetland boundaries as the “next step” that “is to be undertaken by each of the State/UT Wetland Authorities in coordination with concerned nodal Department as provided under the Rules.” It explicitly states that this is a “Statutory function” assigned to these Authorities. Recognising that the Authorities have not discharged this statutory duty, the Court issues a direction to compel compliance: each State/UT Wetland Authority is directed to complete both ground truthing and demarcation of the boundaries of every wetland identified for its State/UT in the SAC Atlas, 2021.

To ensure implementation within a defined timeframe, the Court further directs that this work be completed “as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of three months” from the date of the order. It records that the learned Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, has assured the Court that the Union of India will monitor compliance with each State and will file a detailed affidavit before the next date of listing, thereby providing a mechanism for central oversight.

Turning to Ramsar sites, the Court recalls its earlier order dated 03.04.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 230 of 2001. That order had, with the petitioner’s consent, decentralized monitoring of Ramsar Convention sites to 15 specified High Courts by directing that a Union of India affidavit and earlier Supreme Court orders be sent to them and requesting the Chief Justices to treat the affidavit as a suo motu public interest petition for ensuring proper maintenance of those sites, with liberty to appoint an amicus curiae.

The Court now notes that the number of Ramsar sites has grown from 26 to 85, spread across 23 States and Union Territories, with 59 additional sites falling under the jurisdiction of five further High Courts (Patna, Bombay, Karnataka, Gauhati—including Aizawl Bench—and Uttarakhand). It reproduces the updated list of 85 Ramsar sites (with State/UT, name, date of designation, and area) and then directs the Registrar General of the Supreme Court to send this complete list to all High Courts, specifically including the five additional High Courts. The Court “requests” these High Courts to treat the affidavit as a suo motu public interest litigation, to appoint an amicus if necessary, and to ensure that Ramsar sites within their jurisdiction are properly maintained, stating that this direction is “only as a continuation” of the 03.04.2017 order. Finally, the Court lists the matter for further consideration on 25.03.2025, indicating its intention to review compliance.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court:

Directs each State and Union Territory Wetland Authority to complete ground truthing and demarcation of the boundaries of every wetland identified for its State/UT in the SAC Atlas, 2021, within three months from the date of the order, treating these tasks as statutory functions under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
Records the assurance of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the Union of India will monitor compliance with each State and will file a detailed affidavit before the next date of listing.
Directs the Registrar General of the Supreme Court to send the complete updated list of 85 Ramsar sites to all High Courts, including five additional High Courts (Patna, Bombay, Karnataka, Gauhati including Aizawl Bench, and Uttarakhand), and requests those High Courts to treat the relevant affidavit as a suo motu public interest litigation, appoint an amicus curiae if necessary, and ensure that Ramsar sites within their jurisdiction are properly maintained, as a continuation of the Court’s 03.04.2017 order.
Lists the matter for further hearing on 25.03.2025.

Implications: The immediate consequence for the parties and for all States/UTs is the imposition of a time-bound mandate to perform on-ground verification (ground truthing) and boundary demarcation of all wetlands identified in the SAC Atlas, 2021, under the supervision of their respective Wetland Authorities and nodal departments. For the Union of India, there is a corresponding obligation to monitor this compliance and report back through a detailed affidavit.

For the High Courts, the order extends and updates the framework established in 2017: all High Courts now receive the full list of Ramsar sites and are requested to undertake ongoing judicial monitoring through suo motu public interest proceedings to ensure that these internationally recognized wetlands are properly maintained, with the assistance of amici curiae where required. The order reinforces and operationalizes existing statutory and previously ordered obligations but does not purport to lay down any new legal doctrine beyond enforcing the duties already contained in the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and the earlier Supreme Court directions.

Show full summary ...

ANAND ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.13 SECTION PIL-W

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 304/2018 ANAND ARYA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (IA No. 131361/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)

WITH

W.P.(C) No. 230/2001 (PIL-W) (I.A.NO.203606/2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.230/2001 IA No. 203606/2022 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION) W.P.(C) No. 302/2020 (PIL-W)

(FOR impleading party ON IA 172736/2024 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 172736/2024

FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS ON IA 172737/2024

IA No. 172737/2024 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 172736/2024 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) Date : 11-12-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv.

Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR

Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Reena George, Adv.

Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR

Mr. Amartya Bhushan, Adv.

Mr. Yojit Mehra, Adv.

Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shibani Ghosh, AOR

Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Adv.

Ms. Himanshi Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Swarupma Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR

Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aman Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Manish Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. A K Panda, Adv.

Mr. Wasim Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR Mr. Anand Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jindal, AOR Mr. Vishwanathan Iyer, Adv.

Mr. Arman Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Shimpy Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yeshasvi Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania Aor, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. P. S. Negi, Adv. Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khanna, AOR Ms. Natasha Sahrawat, Adv. Mr. Rudraksh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv. Ms. Deepali Bhanot, Adv. Ms. Alisha Roy, Adv. Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR Mr. Robin Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Bansal, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Dora, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. M.f. Philip, Adv. Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, A.A.G. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Mr. Abhishek Saket, Adv. Ms. Manisha, Adv. Ms. Rupali, Adv.

Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv. Mr. N Visakamurthy,aor, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR

Mr. Abbas B, Adv.

Mr. Aman Gautam, Adv.

Ms. Suveni Bhagat, AOR

Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR

Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv. Mr. D.p.singh, Adv.

Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Adv.

Mr. Shishir Pinaki, AOR Mr. Dhanaeswar Gudapalli, Adv. Ms. Mallika Das, Adv. Mr. Nandi Kiran Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akash Vashistha, Adv. Mr. Rishi Sehgal, AOR Mr. Midhun Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Prior to 2017, the figures given by ISRO regarding the number of wetlands in India having an area more than 2.25 Hectares was 2,01,503. The latest ISRO data, which is of the year 2021, shows that this figure has now increased to 2,31,195.

Now these figures have to be checked on ground. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 (in short, "the Rules") and the guidelines issued thereunder prescribe that the next step after identification of such wetlands is what is called Ground truthing, which is the term given to the actual inspection of these wetlands by a team constituted by the State for that purpose. This step has, however, been neglected by almost all the States, except the State of Punjab to some extent. As regards demarcation of these wetlands all States have done almost nothing up till now. We have been informed at the Bar that each State presently has a Wetland Authority. In fact, reading of Rule 5 suggests that the State Wetlands Authority has already been constituted. Rule 5, by which the State Wetland Authority as well as such Authorities in the Union Territories have been

constituted and the powers to these Authorities have been given, reads as under :-

"Wetland Authorities - (1) The Central Government hereby constitutes the State Wetlands Authority in each State with the following members, namely ; -

XXXXX

(2) The Central Government hereby constitutes the Union Territory Wetlands Authority for each Union Territory with the following members, namely -

XXXX

(3) The State Wetlands Authority or Union Territory Wetlands Authority may co-opt other members, not exceeding three in number, if required.

(4) The State Wetlands Authority or Union Territory Wetlands Authority shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions, namely :-

a)Prepare a list of all wetlands of the State or UT within three months from the dateof publication of these rules;

b) Prepare a list of wetlands to be notified, within six months from the date of publication of these Rules, taking into cognizance any existing list of wetlands prepared/notified under other relevant State

Acts;

c) Recommend identified wetlands, based on their Brief Documents, for regulation under these rules;

d) Prepare a comprehensive digital inventory of all wetlands within one year from the date of publication of these rules and upload the same on a dedicated web portal, to be developed by the Central Government for the said purpose; the inventory ought to be updated every ten years;

e) Develop a comprehensive list of activities, to be regulated and permitted within the notified wetlands and their zone of influence;

f) Recommend additions, if any, to the list of prohibited activities for specific wetlands;

g) Define strategies for conservation and wise use of wetlands within their jurisdiction; wise use being a principle for managing these ecosystems which incorporates sustainable uses (such as capture fisheries at subsistence level or harvest of aquatic plants) as being compatible with

conservation, if ecosystem functions (such as water storage, ground water recharge, flood buffering) and values (such as recreation and cultural) are maintained or enhanced ;

h) Review Integrated Management Plan for each of the notified wetlands (including trans-boundary wetlands in coordination with Central Government), and within these plans to consider continuation and support to traditional uses of wetlands that are harmonized with ecological character;

I) Recommend mechanisms for maintenance of ecological character through promotional activities for land within the boundary of notified wetlands or wetlands complex have private tenancy rights,;

j) Identify mechanisms for convergence of implementation of the management plan with the existing State/UT level development plans and programmes;

k) Ensure enforcement of these rules and other relevant Acts, rules and regulations and on a half-yearly basis (June and December of each calendar year) inform the concerned State Government or UT Administration or Central Government on the status of such notified wetlands through a reporting mechanism;

l) Coordinate implementation of Integrated Management Plans based on wiseuse principle through various line departments and other concerned agencies;

m) Function as a nodal authority for all wetland - specific authorities within the State or UT Administration;

n) Issue necessary directions for the conservation and sustainable management of wetlands to the respective implementing agencies.

o) Undertake measures for enhancing awareness within stakeholders and local communities on values and functions of wetlands; and

p) Advise on any other matter suo-motu, or as referred by the State Government/UT Administration.

(5) The concerned Department of the State Government or Union Territory shall provide all necessary support and act as nodal Department and Secretariat to the Authority.

(6) The Authority shall, within ninety days of publication of these rules, shall constitute -

(a) a technical committee to review brief documents, management plans and advise on any technical matter referred by the Wetland Authority and

(b) a grievance committee consisting of four members to provide a mechanism for hearing

and forwarding the grievances raised by public to the Authority;

(7) The Committees referred to in sub-rule (6) shall meet at least once in every quarter to perform their functions.

(8) The Authority shall meet at least thrice in a year.

(9) The term of non-official members of the Authority nominated by State Government or Union Territory Administration, shall be for a period not exceeding three years." It is clear now that the ground truthing and the demarcation of wetland boundary is the next step, which is to be undertaken by each of the State/UT Wetland Authorities in coordination with concerned nodal Department as provided under the Rules. It is a Statutory function which has been assigned to them under the Rules. We, therefore, direct each of the State/UT Wetland Authorities to complete ground truthing as well as the demarcation of wetland boundaries of each of the Wetland which have been identified for their State by Space Application Center Atlas (SAC Atlas), 2021.

For easy accessibility of this, each of the State/UT Wetland Authorities shall complete this work as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of three months from today. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, has assured this Court that they shall be doing the monitoring with each of the State and shall file a detailed affidavit before the

next date of listing. Vide our order dated 03.04.2017 (in Writ Petition (C) No. 230 of 2001), this Court has passed certain directions regarding protection of Ramsar Convention Sites (of wetlands) to be monitored by each of the High Court concerned and 15 High Courts were given such a direction. The relevant portion of order dated 03.04.2017 is reproduced as under :-

"We have put it to learned counsel for the petitioner that insofar as the Ramsar Convention sites are concerned, since they are matters of international heritage, it might be more appropriate if the concerned High Courts monitor the management of these sites at least till there is some visible improvement. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he has no objection to this. Under the circumstances, we direct the Registry of this Court to make photocopies of the affidavit filed by the Union of India by Dr. A. Duraisamy, Scientist 'F' and Member Secretary, Central Wetland Regulatory Authority and send it to the following High Courts:High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Gauhati High Court, Gujarat High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court, J&K High Court, Kerala High Court, Madhya Pradesh High

Court, Manipur High Court, Orissa High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Madras High Court, Tripura High Court, Allahabad High Court and High Court at Calcutta. The affidavit be sent to the Registrar General of all the aforementioned High Courts within two weeks from today. A copy of all the orders passed by this Court from 10th September, 2014 till today shall also be sent to the concerned High Courts along with the affidavit. We request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court to treat the affidavit as a suo motu public interest petition and, if necessary, appoint an amicus to assist the court so as to ensure that the Ramsar Convention sites within their jurisdiction are properly maintained. The affidavit by the Union of India should be filed within six weeks. List the matter on 12th July, 2017"

Now, the latest figure shows that these Ramsar sites have increased from 26 to 85, including 59 additional sites (cited below) falling under 5 other additional High Courts i.e. Patna, Bombay, Karnataka, Gauhati (Aizawl Bench as well) and Uttarakhand. The list of updated RAMSAR sites has been given to this Court, which is reproduced as under:-

"List of 85 Ramsar Sites State/UT Wetland Date of

Designati

Area

(hectares)

Andhra Pradesh (1)

1. Kolleru Lake 19-08-

2002

90100

2. Assam (1) 2. Deepor Beel 19-08-

2002

4000

3. Bihar (3)

3. Kabartal Wetland 21-07-

2020

2620

4. Nagi Bird Sanctuary 11-10-

2023

206

5. Nakti Bird Sanctuary 11-10-

2023

333

4. Gujarat (4)

6. Nalsarovar 24-09-

2012

12000

7. Wadhvana Wetland 05-04-

2021

630

Thol Lake Wildlife Sanctuary

05-04-

2021

699

9. Khijadia Wildlife Sanctuary 13-04-

2021

512

8. Goa (1) 10. Nanda Lake 08-06-

2022

9. Haryana (2)

11. Sultanpur National Park 25-05-

2021

143

12.

Bhindawas Wildlife Sanctuary

25-05-

2021

412

11.

Himachal Pradesh (3)

13. Pong Dam Lake 19-08-

2002

15662

14. Chandertal Wetland 08-11-

2005

15. Renuka Wetland 08-11-

2005

14. Jammu and Kashmir (5)

16. Wular Lake 23-03-

1990

18900

17. Surinsar-Mansar Lakes 08-11-

2005

350

18. Hokera Wetland 08-11-

2005

1375

19. Hygam Wetland 08-06- 802

Conservation Reserve 2022

20.

Shallbugh Wetland Conservation Reserve 08-06-

2022

1675

19.

Karnataka

(4)

21.

Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary

15-02-

2022

518

22.

Ankasamudra Bird Conservation Reserve 10-03-

2023

98.76

23. Aghanashini Estuary 14-02-

2023

4801

24.

Magadi Kere Conservation Reserve

14-02-

2023

54.38

20. Kerala (3)

25. Asthamudi Wetland 19-08-

2002

6140

26. Sasthamkotta Lake 19-08-

2002

373

27. VembanadKol Wetland 19-08-

2002

151250

23. Ladakh (2)

28. Tso Kar Wetland Complex 17-11-

2020

9577

29. Tsomoriri Lake 19-08-

2002

12000

25.

Madhya Pradesh (5)

30. Bhoj Wetlands 19-08-

2002

3201

31. Sirpur Wetland 07-01-

2022

161

32. Sakhya Sagar 07-01-

2022

248

33. Yashwant Sagar 07-01-

2022

823

34. Tawa Reservoir 08-01-

2024

20050

29.

Maharashtr a (3)

35. Nandur Madhameshwar 21-06-

2019

1437

36. Lonar Lake 22-07-

2020

427

37. Thane Creek 13-04-

2022

6521

32. Manipur (1) 38. Loktak Lake 23-03-

1990

26600

33.

Mizoram

(1)

39. Pala Wetland 31-08-

2021

1850

34. Odisha (6)

40. Chilka Lake 01-10-

1981

116500

41. Bhitarkanika Mangroves 19-08-

2002

65000

42. Satkosia Gorge 12-10-

2021

98197

43. Tampara Lake 12-10-

2021

300

44. Hirakud Reservoir 12-10-

2021

65400

45. Ansupa Lake 12-10-

2021

231

40. Punjab (6)

46. Harike Lake 23-03-

1990

4100

47. Kanjli Lake 22-01-

2002

183

48. Ropar Lake 22-01-

2002

1365

49. Beas Conservation Reserve 26-09-

2019

6429

50.

Keshopur - Miani Community Reserve 26-09-

2019

344

51. Nangal Wildlife Sanctuary 26-09-

2019

116

46.

Rajasthan

(2)

52.

Keoladeo Ghana National Park

1-10-1981 2873

53. Sambhar Lake 23-03-

1990

24000

48. Tamil Nadu

(18)

54.

Point Calimere Wildlife and Bird Sanctuary

19-08-

2002

38500

55.

Koonthankulam Bird Sanctuary

08-11-

2021

56. Chitrangudi Bird Sanctuary 08-11-

2021

260

57. Karikili Bird Sanctuary 08-04-

2022

58. Pichavaram Mangrove 08/04/202

1479

59.

Pallikaranai Marsh Reserve Forest

08-04-

2022

1248

60.

Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve 08-04-

2022

52672

61.

Vembannur Wetland Complex

08-04-

2022

62. Vellode Bird Sanctuary 08-04-

2022

63.

Udhayamarthandapuram Bird Sanctuary 08-04-

2022

64.

Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary

08-04-

2022

65.

Suchindram Theroor Wetland Complex 08-04-

2022

66. Vaduvur Bird Sanctuary 08-04- 113

2022

67.

Kanjirankulam Bird Sanctuary

08-04-

2022

68. Karaivetti Bird Sanctuary 24-05-

2023

453.72

69.

Longwood Shola Reserve Forest

24-05-

2023

116.007

70. Nanjarayan Bird Sanctuary 16-01-

2024

125.865

71. Kazhuveli Bird Sanctuary 16-01-

2024

5151.6

62. Tripura (1) 72. Rudrasagar Lake 08-11-

2005

240

63.

Uttar Pradesh

(10)

73. Upper Ganga River 08-11-

2005

26590

74. Nawabganj Bird Sanctuary 19-09-

2019

225

75. Parvati Arga Bird Sanctuary 02-12-

2019

722

76. Saman Bird Sanctuary 02-12-

2019

526

77. Samaspur Bird Sanctuary 03-10-

2019

799

78. Sandi Bird Sanctuary 26-09-

2019

309

79. Sarsai NawarJheel 19-09-

2019

161

80. Sur Sarovar 21-08-

2020

431

81. Haiderpur Wetland 13-04-

2021

6908

82. Bakhira Wildlife Sanctuary 29-06-

2021

2894

73.

Uttarakhan d (1)

83. Asan Conservation Reserve 21-07-

2020

444

74.

West Bengal (2)

84. East Calcutta Wetlands 19-08-

2002

12500

85. Sunderbans Wetland 30-01-

2019

423000

23 States & UTs

85 Ramsar Sites

13,58,068.

335

The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send the complete list to all the High Courts, including the 5 High Courts which are mentioned above,

and the High Courts are requested to treat the affidavit as a Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation where an Amicus be appointed, if necessary, to assist the Court and ensure that the RAMSAR Sites within their jurisdiction are properly maintained. We say this only as a continuation of our order dated 03.04.2017. List the matter again on 25.03.2025.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)

ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ANAND ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

ANAND ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA

Comments