Shillong, Meghalaya – The High Court of Meghalaya has instructed state authorities to conduct an “intensive identification drive” for wetlands and Ramsar sites across the state, in line with a nationwide initiative by the Supreme Court of India to preserve these vital ecosystems.
In a hearing on March 18, a division bench consisting of Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh converted a Supreme Court referral into a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL No. 2 of 2025), aimed at ensuring proper maintenance and protection of wetlands within the state.
The court’s action follows a Supreme Court order dated December 11, 2024, which directed all High Courts to monitor the preservation of Ramsar Convention sites in their respective jurisdictions. “Considering the fact that the order of the Supreme Court was made on December 11, 2024, this exercise has to be made expeditiously,” the bench noted in its order.
The case emerged after the Member Secretary of the Meghalaya State Wetland Authority informed the court on February 14 that there were no notified Ramsar sites in the state. However, during the hearing, Senior Government Advocate NG Shylla acknowledged that the inspection of wetlands may not have been thorough. “The entire body of wetlands or waterbodies may not have been inspected by the State,” he stated, requesting more time for a comprehensive survey.
In response, the court granted six weeks for the state government, in collaboration with the Meghalaya State Wetland Authority and the Chief Conservator of Forests, to complete the identification process and submit a report by April 29, 2025.
Furthermore, the court directed the Registrar General to appoint counsel to represent the High Court before the Supreme Court on March 25, when the related case, Writ Petition No. 304 of 2018 – Anand Arya v. Union of India, is scheduled for hearing.
This initiative is part of a broader nationwide effort to preserve wetlands, a critical natural resource that the Supreme Court has been concerned with since 2001, following the MK Balakrishnan case, which raised issues regarding the identification and maintenance of these ecosystems.