“None Of The Wetlands Qualify As A Ramsar Site”: Meghalaya High Court Accepts State Report And Directs Filing Of Affidavit Before Supreme Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Meghalaya Division Bench of Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh held that based on the report filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), none of the identified wetlands in the State of Meghalaya qualify for designation as Ramsar sites. The Court accepted the report and directed the Registrar General of the High Court to file an affidavit in the pending writ petition before the Supreme Court affirming compliance with the apex court's earlier order. The affidavit is to be filed only after obtaining necessary leave from the Supreme Court. The public interest litigation was accordingly disposed of.
The matter originated from an order dated 11 December 2024 passed by the Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No. 304 of 2018. Through the said order, the Supreme Court requested the High Court of Meghalaya to initiate proceedings for the purpose of “ground truthing” of wetlands and for identifying Ramsar sites from among the waterbodies located within the State.
Following the Supreme Court’s directive, the Registrar General of the High Court of Meghalaya was named as the petitioner in the present public interest litigation. The respondent was the State of Meghalaya, represented through the Chief Secretary.
The term “ground truthing” as used in the proceedings referred to the process of physically inspecting and verifying the current status, nature, and ecological features of waterbodies within the State. This was to determine whether any of the wetlands qualified for designation as Ramsar sites under the criteria adopted by the Ramsar Convention.
The Ramsar Convention is an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands. Under its framework, each participating country identifies ecologically important wetlands that meet prescribed parameters concerning area, depth, habitat uniqueness, and biodiversity significance. Designated wetlands are to be preserved, monitored, and maintained in accordance with guidelines issued under the treaty.
In compliance with the Supreme Court’s order, the State Government, through the Department of Forests and Environment, undertook a comprehensive survey of all major waterbodies across the region. The Meghalaya State Wetland Authority, along with officials from the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration), conducted the required inspections.
A report dated 29 April 2025 was prepared by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Administration) and submitted before the High Court through the learned Advocate General. The report detailed the outcome of the inspection and evaluation process.
As per paragraph 10 of the affidavit submitted with the report, the authorities inspected a total of 66 lakes or ponds, one oxbow or cut-off meander, six riverine wetlands, 18 waterlogged bodies, 100 rivers or streams, nine reservoirs or barrages, and 25 tanks or ponds.
The affidavit concluded that none of the waterbodies reviewed during the ground truthing process satisfied the minimum requirements for categorization as Ramsar sites under the criteria of the Ramsar Convention. Consequently, the State Government determined that no recommendation would be made for Ramsar designation of any of these wetlands.
The Court recorded that the present proceedings arose out of a directive issued by the Supreme Court, stating, “This public interest litigation was started pursuant to an order dated 11th December, 2024 by the Supreme Court. It requested us to initiate this litigation for the purpose of ‘ground truthing’ of wetlands and identification of Ramsar sites amongst those waterbodies, in this State.”
Clarifying the scope of eligibility for Ramsar classification, the Court stated, “As explained by the learned Advocate General, not all waterbodies can be categorised as Ramsar sites. Waterbodies of a particular minimum area, depth, unique nature, characteristics and its natural habitat qualify as Ramsar sites.”
The Court further recorded, “The purpose of the Supreme Court order was to ensure that suitable orders were passed by a High Court upon the State for identification, preservation and maintenance of these waterbodies in accordance with the resolution taken in the Ramsar Convention.”
Upon considering the report filed on behalf of the State, the Court noted, “The submissions of learned Advocate General based on this report have been most informative, convincing and detailed.”
Quoting the affidavit, the Court stated, “All categories of wetlands comprising of 66 lakes/ponds, 1 oxbow/cut off meander, 6 riverine wetlands, 18 waterlogged bodies, 100 river/streams, 9 reservoirs/barrages and 25 tanks/ponds had been inspected.”
Recording the main finding of the inspection, the Court stated, “‘Ground truthing’ of these wetlands had been completed. It is opined in the report by the Chief Conservator of Forests of the State government that none of the above wetlands qualify as a Ramsar site.”
The Court formally accepted the report by recording, “The said report is accepted and taken on record.” It further noted that “the writ petition [Writ Petition (C) No. 304 of 2018] in which the said order was passed by the Supreme Court on 11th December, 2024 is still pending.”
The Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to file an affidavit in the pending writ petition before the Supreme Court, on behalf of both the State of Meghalaya and the High Court, setting out the steps taken in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order, including all orders passed by the High Court and the report of the State dated 29th April, 2025.
It was further directed that the affidavit should be filed only after obtaining appropriate leave from the Supreme Court. Upon noting the completion of the ground truthing process and the findings submitted by the State authorities, the Court disposed of the public interest litigation.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate General with Ms. R. Colney, Government Advocate; Dr. N. Mozika, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Ms. K. Gurung, Advocate
Case Title: Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya
Neutral Citation: 2025:MLHC:330-DB
Case Number: PIL No. 2 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji, Justice W. Diengdoh
[Read/Download order]
