Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji has directed the formation of a dedicated local authority for the protection and conservation of the Ashtamudi wetland. The Court held that the creation of a site-specific Ashtamudi Wetland Authority or sub-committee is essential for the effective implementation of the management plan mandated by the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. This authority is to function under the supervision of the State Wetland Authority and include members from multiple departments and expert representatives, with its composition to be finalized by the Principal Secretary, Environment Department.

The matter concerns the ecological degradation and administrative inaction regarding the Ashtamudi wetland, a Ramsar site notified in 2002 and located in the Kollam district of Kerala. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising grievances about the encroachments and pollution affecting the wetland, resulting from untreated sewage discharge and waste dumping.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Railway’s Right To Levy Penal Charges After Delivery | Section 66 Permits Demand For Misdeclared Goods Irrespective Of Timing

The petitioners, including an NGO named Help Foundation, alleged that the indiscriminate discharge of sewage, including biomedical waste, had severely damaged the wetland’s ecological balance. They claimed that commercial and residential establishments were releasing untreated waste into the wetland, leading to the destruction of mangrove forests and adverse effects on the biodiversity and water quality of the region. The petitioners relied on various reports and stated the penalty of Rs.10 crore imposed by the National Green Tribunal in 2023 on the Government for its failure to protect Ashtamudi and other lakes.

They sought the Court’s intervention for the formulation and implementation of a dedicated management plan and prayed for the constitution of a specific authority exclusively for the Ashtamudi wetland, contending that the existing framework under the State Wetland Authority was inadequate due to lack of effective and focused monitoring and enforcement.

The respondents included the Union of India, State of Kerala, Pollution Control Board, District and Sub-District administrative authorities, local self-government institutions (panchayats and municipality), and the State Wetland Authority. Their counsel submitted various responses defending the constitutionally and statutorily established State Wetland Authority, constituted under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

It was submitted that the existing authority, empowered under Rule 5 of the 2017 Rules, had the requisite responsibility to monitor, manage and enforce environmental protection strategies across notified wetlands in Kerala, including Ashtamudi. The respondents also referred to Rule 2(e), which defines an integrated management plan for the wetland and contended that adequate mechanisms were in place to ensure implementation.

Nonetheless, the Court noted that various stakeholders and government officials acknowledged the deteriorating condition of Ashtamudi and admitted gaps in the enforcement mechanisms. The submissions made on behalf of the respondents indicated the possibility of enhancing institutional efficacy through specialized and site-specific bodies.

The Division Bench began its analysis by reiterating the ecological importance of the Ashtamudi wetland, stating "This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerns Ashtamudi wetland which was notified as a Ramsar site in the year 2002." It recorded that the Petitioner sought to bring to the fore the "depletion and deterioration of the Ashtamudi wetlands caused due to various factors such as, pollution from drainage discharge, encroachment, etc."

On the issue of constituting a new authority, the Court considered Rule 3(a) of the 2017 Rules and observed in clear terms: "The Ramsar Convention states that wetlands being dynamic areas open to influence from natural and human factors, in order to maintain their biological diversity and productivity, management planning process is necessary."

The Bench further stated, "Such an authority is particularly important in the case of a large wetland (such as Ashtamudi), where there is a need to take into account all interests, user groups, and pressures on the wetland, in a complex ownership and management situation."

The Court stated the role of the State Wetland Authority under Rule 5 of the 2017 Rules, stating: "The State Wetland Authority, constituted under Rule 5 of Rules of 2017, is entrusted with the supervision in respect of wetlands within the State and is also responsible for developing an integrated management plan for each of the notified wetlands and identified mechanism for implementation of the management plan."

Acknowledging that "the condition of Ashtamudi land is admittedly a matter of concern," the Court referred to the factual averments about "sewage and biomedical waste... flowing into the lake and that encroachments have led to the destruction of mangrove forests."

Referring to the need for a focused and coordinated response, the Court noted: "Considering that both, Ramsar Convention and the Rules of 2017 state the importance of a management plan for large wetland such as Ashtamudi... it would be appropriate that a specific authority/committee is constituted."

The Court also pointed to lacunae in existing arrangements and called for submission of further factual details, stating: "The Respondent – State will inform as to whether this was done and whether the State Wetland Authority is fully functional with all the ex officio and nominated members."

The High Court issued specific directions to enhance the oversight and implementation of the wetland conservation plan. It recorded: "Considering the necessity of a specific agency for the implementation of the management plan for Ashtamudi lake, we propose to constitute Ashtamudi Local Wetland Authority/sub-committee for the protection and conservation of Ashtamudi wetland to work under the supervision of the State Wetland Authority."

The composition of the new authority was elaborated upon as follows: "The Collector can be in-charge of the Ashtamudi Wetland Authority/Committee, which can include the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation; Joint Director of the Local Self Government Department; Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kollam; Deputy Director, Department of Fisheries, Kollam; Executive Engineer, Inland Navigation Division, Kollam; Deputy Director, District Tourism, Department of Tourism, Kollam; Environment Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Kollam; Member Secretary of the State Biodiversity Board; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment Centre, Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram; Chief Conservator of Forests, Southern Circle, Kollam; and one expert from the field of State Wetland Authority."

The Court directed: "The Principal Secretary, Environment Department can finalize the composition of the Committee and also recommend one expert each from wetland ecology, hydrology, fisheries, landscape planning and socio-economics, and two experts from wetland management, preferably having expertise relating to the Ashtamudi wetland."

Also Read: Discharged Soldier Suffers In Silence | Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension To BSF Constable With Bipolar Disorder | Board Ignored Service Stress And Gave No Reason For Denial

Additionally, "The Principal Secretary will also indicate in the affidavit to be filed the procedure by which the Authority/sub-committee will function, the manner in which it will report to the State Wetland Authority."

"The State Wetland Authority Kerala (SWAK) represented by its Member Secretary... is suo motu impleaded as additional Respondent No.23." The petitioner was directed to serve the writ petition and the order to the standing counsel for SWAK.

The Court fixed the next hearing for July 1, 2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: M/s. Ajmal A., Dhanush C.A., Priyanka Sharma M.R., Ananya M.G., Advocates

For the Respondents: Sri. Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader; Sri. T. Naveen, Standing Counsel & Sri. Abhishek V.S., Advocate for R8; Sri. S. Sreekumar (Kollam), Standing Counsel; Sri. M.R Sasith & Smt. Hasna Jabit, Advocates; Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, Standing Counsel; Sri. Vinoy Varghese Kallummoottill, Advocate; M/s. K.V Anil Kumar & Radhika S. Anil, Advocates; Sri. Manoj Ramaswamy & Smt. Jolima George, Advocates; Sri. Bijith S. Khan & Sri. Ameer Salim, Advocates; Sri. V. Premchand, Standing Counsel.

Case Title: Boris Paul v. Union of India & Ors.

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

Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji

[Read/Download order]