Supreme Court Order on Mining Around Ramsar Wetlands: Judicial Safeguard for Wetland Conservation

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has clarified that its earlier direction requiring prior approval before mining within a 10-km radius of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve in Uttarakhand would apply, for the sake of parity, to wetland conservation reserves across the country. This clarification is significant because Ramsar sites and wetland conservation reserves do not have a clearly defined statutory mining buffer under existing wetland rules.

What Did the Supreme Court Clarify?

The Supreme Court clarified that the principle laid down in the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve case is not limited only to Uttarakhand.

The earlier direction required that no mining activity should be carried out within a 10-km radius of the Asan reserve unless prior permission is obtained from:

• the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, and/or
• the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

The latest clarification means that similar safeguards may apply to other wetland conservation reserves across India. the Court also directed the NBWL Standing Committee or MoEFCC to determine whether the Asan wetland extends into Himachal Pradesh. If it extends into Himachal Pradesh, the 2024 directions would apply there. If not, mining proposals would be governed by the applicable statutory framework.

Background of the Asan Wetland Case

The Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve is located at the confluence of the Asan and Yamuna rivers in Uttarakhand.

In its interim order of February 14, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the wetland’s Ramsar status required higher scrutiny of activities that could affect its ecological character.

What are Ramsar Sites?

• Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance.
• They are designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, adopted in 1971 at Ramsar, Iran.
• India became a party to the Convention in 1982.
• Ramsar designation recognises the ecological importance of a wetland and requires the country to maintain its ecological character.
• India currently has 101 Ramsar sites, the highest among Asian countries.
• Glaw Lake in Arunachal Pradesh became India’s 101st Ramsar site in August 2026.

Ramsar Sites in India – State-wise List 2026

Do Ramsar Sites Have a Statutory Mining Buffer?

• A Ramsar designation does not automatically create a separate statutory protection regime under Indian law.
• Neither the Ramsar Convention nor the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 prescribe a fixed statutory buffer zone around Ramsar sites for mining.
• This means there is no general rule under the Wetlands Rules that mining is automatically prohibited within a specific distance from every Ramsar site.
• The Supreme Court’s direction is therefore important because it creates a judicial safeguard for mining activities near wetland conservation reserves.

Wetlands Rules: 2010 vs 2017

Petitioners have argued that the 2017 framework weakens protections available under the 2010 Rules and excludes many artificial wetlands recognised under the Ramsar Convention.

Mining Restrictions Near Protected Areas

Mining restrictions near wetlands differ from restrictions near national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and forests.

1. National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries

Mining inside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries is prohibited under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

The Supreme Court has also held that mining is impermissible within one kilometre of every national park and wildlife sanctuary unless a larger Eco-Sensitive Zone has already been notified.

2. Eco-Sensitive Zones

If a larger ESZ has been notified around a protected area, the larger notified buffer prevails.

3. Forest Areas

Mining in forest areas requires prior approval of the Union government under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980.

4. Environmental Clearance

Mining projects generally require environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.

5. Wetland Conservation Reserves

In the case of wetland conservation reserves, the Supreme Court’s Asan direction requires prior approval before mining within a 10-km radius, but this operates as a judicial safeguard rather than a statutory buffer under the Wetlands Rules.

Significance of the Supreme Court Clarification

1. Strengthens Wetland Protection

The order gives additional protection to wetland conservation reserves where statutory buffer rules are unclear.

2. Applies Precautionary Principle

Wetlands are fragile ecosystems. Prior approval ensures that mining proposals are examined before ecological damage occurs.

3. Protects Ramsar Ecological Character

Ramsar sites are internationally recognised for ecological importance. Activities affecting their ecological character require stricter scrutiny.

4. Improves Regulatory Oversight

Requiring approval from NBWL or MoEFCC introduces higher-level environmental review.

5. Creates Parity Across States

The clarification prevents uneven protection where one wetland receives judicial safeguard while similar wetlands elsewhere remain exposed.

6. Addresses Gaps in Wetland Rules

Since the 2017 Rules do not prescribe a fixed mining buffer, the Court’s direction fills an important regulatory gap.

Challenges and Concerns

1. Legal Ambiguity

The direction applies to wetland conservation reserves, but Ramsar sites as a category still do not have a statutory buffer zone.

2. Federal Concerns

Wetland management under the 2017 Rules is largely decentralised through State Wetland Authorities. Judicial directions may require better Centre-State coordination.

3. Impact on Mining Projects

Mining proposals near wetland conservation reserves may now face additional scrutiny and delays.

4. Need for Clear Mapping

Authorities must clearly map wetland boundaries and zones of influence to avoid disputes.

5. Ecological Character Assessment

Scientific assessment is needed to determine how mining affects hydrology, bird habitats, aquatic biodiversity and sediment flow.

6. Enforcement Capacity

Legal safeguards are effective only when backed by monitoring, field inspections and compliance mechanisms.

Way Forward

1. Notify Clear Wetland Boundaries

All wetland conservation reserves and Ramsar sites should have scientifically demarcated boundaries.

2. Define Zones of Influence

Instead of relying only on fixed-distance rules, authorities should identify ecological zones based on hydrology, biodiversity and land-use patterns.

3. Strengthen State Wetland Authorities

State Wetland Authorities need technical capacity, funding and monitoring systems.

4. Improve Mining Scrutiny

Mining projects near wetlands should undergo cumulative impact assessment, not only project-wise clearance.

5. Harmonise Legal Frameworks

Wetland Rules, Wildlife Protection Act, EIA framework and forest laws should work together to avoid regulatory gaps.

6. Ensure Local Participation

Local communities, fisherfolk, farmers and bird experts should be involved in wetland conservation planning.

7. Strengthen Compliance Monitoring

Use satellite imagery, GIS mapping and field audits to monitor illegal mining and land-use change around wetlands.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s clarification on mining near wetland conservation reserves is an important step in strengthening wetland protection. It does not create a universal statutory buffer for all Ramsar sites, but it adds a judicial safeguard by requiring prior approval for mining within a 10-km radius of wetland conservation reserves. This is significant because India’s wetlands face pressure from mining, urbanisation, encroachment and pollution. The larger lesson is that wetland conservation needs clear legal standards, scientific mapping, strong State Wetland Authorities and accountable project clearances. Protecting wetlands is not only about biodiversity; it is also about water security, flood regulation, climate resilience and sustainable development.