<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a petition challenging the "vague" definition of 'wetland' under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.</p><p>A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing a plea filed by biologist Ravindra Sinha and others, questioning the constitutional validity of the definition under Rule 2(g) of the Rules. </p><p>The rule defines a 'wetland' as an area of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary.</p>.Supreme Court flags 'environmental crisis' in National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary due to illegal sand mining.<p>Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the definition in the 2017 Rules had diluted the protection available to wetlands, resulting in several ecologically sensitive sites being left out of regulatory safeguards. He claimed that 44 out of 99 sites have lost protection due to the diluted norms.</p><p>The petition highlighted that the exclusionary part of Rule 2(g) removes safeguards for river channels, paddy fields, human-made water bodies, tanks built for drinking water, and structures created for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation.</p><p>After hearing the submissions, the bench issued notice to the Union of India and the National Wetlands Committee, directing them to file their responses by August 10.</p><p>"We are limiting our notice to the vagueness of the definition," the bench clarified.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a petition challenging the "vague" definition of 'wetland' under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.</p><p>A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing a plea filed by biologist Ravindra Sinha and others, questioning the constitutional validity of the definition under Rule 2(g) of the Rules. </p><p>The rule defines a 'wetland' as an area of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary.</p>.Supreme Court flags 'environmental crisis' in National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary due to illegal sand mining.<p>Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the definition in the 2017 Rules had diluted the protection available to wetlands, resulting in several ecologically sensitive sites being left out of regulatory safeguards. He claimed that 44 out of 99 sites have lost protection due to the diluted norms.</p><p>The petition highlighted that the exclusionary part of Rule 2(g) removes safeguards for river channels, paddy fields, human-made water bodies, tanks built for drinking water, and structures created for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation.</p><p>After hearing the submissions, the bench issued notice to the Union of India and the National Wetlands Committee, directing them to file their responses by August 10.</p><p>"We are limiting our notice to the vagueness of the definition," the bench clarified.</p>
