Shillong: The High Court of Meghalaya has delivered its final verdict, determining that none of the state’s numerous wetlands meet the stringent criteria required for designation as Ramsar sites. This decision concludes a public interest litigation (PIL) that was initiated following a directive from the Supreme Court of India.
A division bench of the High Court, presided over by Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh, accepted a comprehensive report presented by the Chief Conservator of Forests for the state of Meghalaya. This report was the culmination of an extensive “ground truthing” exercise conducted by state authorities, which involved a detailed examination of all wetlands located across the state.
In his oral pronouncement, Chief Justice Mukerji acknowledged the thoroughness and persuasiveness of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, which were based on the detailed findings of the Chief Conservator’s report. The court’s decision effectively closes the chapter on Meghalaya’s potential inclusion in the prestigious list of internationally recognized wetlands.
The legal proceedings were set in motion by an order issued by the Supreme Court on December 11, 2024. This order instructed the High Court of Meghalaya to undertake proceedings aimed at verifying and potentially identifying wetlands within the state that could be considered of international significance under the Ramsar Convention.
In adherence to the Supreme Court’s directive, the Meghalaya State Wetland Authority carried out meticulous inspections of a total of 225 water bodies spread throughout the state. This extensive survey encompassed a diverse range of aquatic environments, including 66 lakes and ponds, 100 rivers and streams, 18 waterlogged areas, 9 reservoirs and barrages, 25 tanks and ponds, 6 riverine wetlands, and a single oxbow or cut-off meander.
Advocate General A Kumar, representing the state government’s position before the High Court, elucidated that the designation of a water body as a Ramsar site is contingent upon meeting specific and rigorous criteria. These criteria pertain to the water body’s “minimum area, depth, unique nature, characteristics and its natural habitat,” as outlined by the international Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
The High Court, in its judgment, explicitly stated that “not all waterbodies can be categorised as Ramsar sites,” emphasizing the selective nature of the Ramsar Convention’s guidelines for identifying wetlands of international importance. The court made a clear reference to the Ramsar Convention, signed in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971, which provides the framework for the identification and conservation of these ecologically significant areas.
While disposing of the public interest litigation, the High Court issued a directive to its Registrar General. The Registrar General is now tasked with filing an affidavit with the Supreme Court. This affidavit will detail the actions taken by the High Court in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order of December 2024, including the submission and acceptance of the state government’s comprehensive report dated April 29.
This case marks the conclusion of Meghalaya’s involvement in a nationwide initiative aimed at identifying potential Ramsar sites across India. This broader effort originated from a writ petition (CJ No. 304 of 2018) that remains pending before the Supreme Court. Ramsar sites hold significant ecological value and are afforded protection under international treaty obligations due to their recognized international importance.
Read More: Manipur: Imphal Convenes High-Level Security Summit Amidst Heightened State Vigilance