Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji held that the Ashtamudi Wetland, a Ramsar Site of international importance, requires the immediate establishment of a dedicated authority and an Integrated Management Plan in compliance with statutory provisions. The Bench directed the State Government and the State Wetland Authority to constitute a specific Unit for the Ashtamudi Wetland and finalize the management plan within prescribed timelines. The Court mandated that the Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit be officially notified within two months and its first meeting held within the same timeframe. It also directed the preparation of a Standard Operating Procedure for the Unit and instructed the State to provide requisite infrastructure, personnel, and funding. The Court further required the development of a public-access web platform and stipulated that all government departments and agencies cooperate fully with the Unit.

The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation to address the deteriorating ecological condition of Ashtamudi Lake, located in the Kollam district of Kerala. The lake, which serves as a critical estuarine wetland, is a designated Ramsar Site and spans over 6,140 hectares. It is bordered by numerous Gram Panchayats and the Kollam Corporation. Despite its environmental significance, the lake faces serious threats from pollution, encroachment, and unregulated activities.

Also Read: Second Quashing Petition Under Section 482 CrPC Not Maintainable On Pre-Existing Grounds | Supreme Court Restores Criminal Complaint

The Petitioners, an advocate and a registered NGO, contended that various statutory and municipal bodies had failed in their responsibility to preserve the lake. The first Petitioner is a practising advocate and the second Petitioner is the Help Foundation, represented by its CEO. Both Petitioners are based in Kollam and claimed that unchecked discharge of sewage, destruction of mangroves, and other human interventions were degrading the lake’s ecosystem.

The Respondents included multiple authorities such as the Union of India (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change), State of Kerala, District Collector, Pollution Control Board, various Gram Panchayats, and the State Wetland Authority.

The Petitioners placed on record several official documents to substantiate their claims. These included the Sanitation Survey conducted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board from 2020-2022 and the Report of the Environment Committee of the Fifteenth Kerala Legislative Assembly dated 17 March 2023. The Sanitation Survey indicated that a significant percentage of households directly discharged untreated wastewater into the lake. It also reported widespread solid waste mismanagement, including dumping and burning of waste.

The Legislative Committee Report noted that the size of the wetland had reduced drastically, from 61.40 sq. km to 34 sq. km. Mangroves and fish-breeding grounds had been largely destroyed, threatening the livelihood of fishermen. The lake’s water quality had been further compromised by untreated hospital and commercial waste, dumping of plastic and tourism-related refuse. The Committee had recommended an urgent revision of the Management Action Plan under the National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems (NPCA).

It was also recorded that in 2023, the National Green Tribunal imposed a penalty of ₹10 Crores on the Government of Kerala for its failure to safeguard the wetland. Despite this, the Court noted that the statutory authorities continued to work in isolation, without any unified strategy.

During hearings, it emerged that the State Wetland Authority had been constituted under the Rules of 2017, but was largely ineffective. There was no site-specific authority or committee for the Ashtamudi Wetland, nor was there a current Integrated Management Plan in place.

The Bench examined the legal framework in detail. Ashtamudi Wetland is protected under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. These Rules mandate the formation of an Integrated Management Plan and a responsible authority for each Ramsar Site.

Under Rule 2(1)(e) of the 2017 Rules, an Integrated Management Plan must outline conservation strategies, monitoring systems, resources, and responsible actors. The State Wetlands Authority, established under Rule 5, is obligated to review and support these plans.

The Court referred to Clause VI of the NPCA Guidelines, which also mandate a Framework Management Plan where data or capacity constraints exist, pending formulation of a full-fledged Integrated Management Plan. Both plans must specify conservation objectives, timelines, budgets, and performance indicators.

The Court was informed that the State was in the process of preparing a new plan with assistance from Wetlands International South Asia, involving experts in hydrology, ecology, forestry, and socio-economics. However, this was still incomplete. No interim plan had been instituted to bridge the gap.

Following an interim order dated 10 June 2025, the Court had directed the State to furnish details on the constitution and functionality of the State Wetland Authority and the status of the Integrated Management Plan. In compliance, the Government submitted that a 30-member Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit had been proposed. The members included officials from departments of tourism, fisheries, forest, irrigation, urban and rural development, and representatives of the local Panchayats.

The Court recorded that the proposed Unit would be headed by a Chief Executive Officer, assisted by technical experts such as a Wetland Hydrologist, Ecologist, GIS Specialist, Networking Officer, and Capacity Development Officer. The plan also included administrative and financial staff.

The Court accepted the State’s proposal but stated that timelines must be enforced to ensure compliance.

"This Public Interest Litigation is filed to highlight the depleting condition of Ashtamudi Lake and for its restoration measures." The Bench recorded that Ashtamudi is a Ramsar Site and is thereby governed by both international treaty obligations and domestic statutory laws.

The judgment noted, "Ashtamudi faces serious threats from pollution, encroachment, unregulated activities, and various other factors." The Court referred to the Sanitation Survey by the Pollution Control Board which found that "18% of households discharge it [wastewater] directly into Ashtamudi," and that "about 60% of households did not segregate waste, and some disposed of mixed waste into the lake or nearby open areas."

The Report of the Environment Committee was also cited: "The Ashtamudi has reduced from 61.40 sq. kms. to 34 sq. kms. In some coastal areas, the depth... has reduced to less than half a metre."

"Mangroves and crucial fish-breeding grounds have almost disappeared and fishermen dependent on this Wetland are on the verge of losing their livelihoods." The Committee also stated that the site was degraded by "pollution from human waste, chemicals, untreated hospital and commercial waste, encroachments, sand mining, and tourism-related plastic accumulation."

The Bench found that, despite clear obligations under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, "both the dedicated unit and the management plan were not in place for Ashtamudi Wetland."

The Court also noted the requirement under Rule 5(4) of the 2017 Rules: "The State Wetlands Authority has to list all wetlands in the State... [and] review and support integrated management plans."

Addressing the significance of a site-specific authority, the Bench recorded: "The Ramsar Convention emphasizes site specific management plan and an authority to oversee its implementation... particularly important in the case of a large wetland like Ashtamudi."

Further, the Bench stated, "As of today, therefore, Ashtamudi lacks both a dedicated unit and a specific management plan. The absence of these two crucial components has resulted in haphazard and disjointed efforts, leading to the resultant situation."

The Court clarified the intent of its intervention: "Our endeavour in this petition through the interim orders and by this judgment, is to ensure that these two primary requirements, a dedicated authority and a specific management plan, are first put in place."

The Court issued multiple specific directives to ensure immediate compliance. It directed that: "The State Government and the State Wetland Authority as per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 shall constitute a specific Unit for the Ashtamudi Wetland – Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit, as stated in the remarks placed on record... within a period of two months from today by issuing an official notification in that regard."

Further, "The first meeting of the Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit shall be convened within two months from the date of the said notification, to finalize the procedural formalities for regulating its business."

The Court required: "A Standard Operating Procedure shall be formulated... specifying modalities, such as the venue and frequency of its meetings, and the mechanism for co-ordination among stakeholders."

On infrastructure and funding, the Court ordered: "The State Government will ensure that the Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit is provided with the necessary office infrastructure, support staff, and funding for its functioning."

It also directed the creation of a digital presence: "The Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit shall have its own website or, at the minimum a dedicated web page hosted on the official website of the State Wetlands Authority with a feedback mechanism with public access."

Also Read: Kerala HC Denies Parole for Child’s First Rice Feeding Ceremony | Life Convict Not Entitled to Leave for Traditional Rituals After Already Availing Emergency Parole for Delivery

Regarding the Management Plan, the Court stated: "The Integrated Management Plan for the Ashtamudi Wetland shall be finalized within a period of six months from the date of this judgment." Until then, "the State Wetland Authority will consider developing an interim Management Plan... as per the governing procedure and regulations."

Lastly, "All Government departments and statutory agencies will act in aid of the Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit/Committee and extend full co-operation to it in the discharge of its functions."

The Court also clarified: "The Secretary of the Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit will be at liberty to take out an application in the present disposed of Public Interest Litigation, in case any further directions are required, especially regarding the adequacy of infrastructure or co-operation by other departments and agencies."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Ajmal A., Sri. Dhanush C.A., Smt. Priyanka Sharma M.R., Smt. Ananya M.G.

For the Respondents: Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. Tekchand; Sri. T. Naveen, SC, Pollution Control Board; Sri. M.R. Sasith, SC; Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, SC; Sri. Vinoy Varghese Kallumootill; Sri. K.V. Anil Kumar; Sri. Bijith S. Khan, SC; Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy, SC; Sri. Prakash M.P., SC, KCZMA; Smt. Radhika S. Anil

Case Title: Adv. Boris Paul and Another v. Union of India and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:56148

Case Number: WP(C) No. 18400 of 2024

Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, and Justice Basant Balaji