Bombay HC initiates suo motu PIL for preservation of Ramsar sites in Maharashtra, seeks authorities’ response

The sites are protected under the Ramsar Convention of 1971, an intergovernmental treaty that provided the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation of wetlands and their resources.

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar said it has taken cognisance of observations made by the Supreme Court in its December 11, 2024 order, pertaining to wetlands identified at Nandur Madhameshwar, Lonar Lake and Thane creek.

The high court, in its order, noted that last month, the Supreme Court observed that the affidavit filed in the matter by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) be treated as a suo motu PIL to ensure that Ramsar convention sites within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court are properly maintained.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had in the order noted that the latest figures showed that Ramsar sites had increased from 26 to 85, with 59 additional sites falling under five other additional high courts, including Patna, Bombay, Karnataka, Gauhati (Aizawl bench as well) and Uttarakhand.

The Supreme Court, while passing directions for the protection of Ramsar sites of wetlands, had asked the wetland authority of each state or Union Territory to expeditiously and preferably within three months complete ‘ground truthing’ as well as demarcation of wetland boundaries identified by the Space Application Centre Atlas (SAC Atlas), 2021.

In light of the said order, the high court issued notices to the Centre, MoEFCC, state government’s environment, revenue and forest departments along with Maharashtra Wetlands Authority seeking their response to the issue.

The high court also appointed senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in the matter and requested him to prepare and submit within four weeks a detailed note outlining the issues which may be required in the matter so that appropriate directions can be issued to concerned authorities.

It asked the Additional Solicitor General, representing the Centre, to assist it in the matter and directed the respondent authorities to submit their response to the note by the Amicus within two weeks thereafter and posted further hearing on February 25.