How will the Supreme Court order impact mining around Ramsar wetland sites? | Explained

The story so far: The Supreme Court has clarified that its February 2024 direction, requiring prior approval before mining can take place within a 10-km radius of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve, would, for the sake of parity, apply to wetland conservation reserves across the country. The clarification potentially extends a judicial safeguard that was earlier confined to the Asan Ramsar site in Uttarakhand to similarly notified wetland conservation reserves elsewhere.What prompted the Supreme Court to dwell on this question?The clarification arose while the Supreme Court was hearing an application from the Himachal Pradesh government. The State argued that the February 14, 2024 interim order concerning the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve in Uttarakhand should not automatically apply to it because the Asan reserve was not located within Himachal Pradesh and, unlike national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, wetland conservation reserves do not have a statutory buffer zone.The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, orally clarified that the principle laid down in the Asan case was not confined to Uttarakhand. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that wherever there is a community reserve or wetland conservation reserve, the directions issued in the Asan case would apply for the sake of parity. At the same time, the court directed the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) or the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to determine whether the Asan wetland extends into Himachal Pradesh. If it does, the 2024 directions would apply there as well. If not, mining proposals would be governed by the applicable statutory framework.What is the background to the Asan wetland case?The Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve lies at the confluence of the Asan and Yamuna rivers in Uttarakhand and was designated a Ramsar site in 2020. It is an important habitat for migratory waterbirds and supports rich aquatic biodiversity.In an interim order dated February 14, 2024, the Supreme Court directed that no mining activity should be carried out within a 10-km radius of the reserve unless the project proponent first obtained permission from the Standing Committee of the NBWL and/or the MoEFCC. The Bench said the wetland’s designation as a Ramsar site warranted heightened scrutiny of activities that could affect its ecological character. The latest clarification indicates that the same principle would apply to other wetland conservation reserves across India.What are Ramsar sites?Ramsar sites are wetlands designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, an international treaty adopted in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971 to promote the conservation and wise use of wetlands of international importance. India became a Contracting Party to the Convention in 1982.India currently has 101 Ramsar sites, the maximum among Asian countries. On August 3, 2026, Glaw Lake in Arunachal Pradesh became the country’s 101st Ramsar site and the State’s first, taking India’s tally from 98 earlier this year to 101.A Ramsar designation does not itself create a separate statutory protection regime under Indian law. Rather, it recognises the international ecological importance of a wetland and commits India to maintaining its ecological character through domestic environmental laws.What does the law say about mining in Ramsar wetlands?Neither the Ramsar Convention nor the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 prescribes a statutory buffer around Ramsar sites or expressly prohibits mining within a specified distance of them.The earlier Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 contained a detailed list of prohibited activities within wetlands, including reclamation, establishment of new industries, dumping of solid waste and any activity likely to adversely affect the wetland ecosystem. They also required prior approval for activities within a wetland’s zone of influence and mandated environmental impact assessments for specified projects.The 2017 Rules replaced this framework with a decentralised system under State Wetland Authorities. They removed the explicit list of prohibited activities contained in the 2010 Rules and shifted responsibility for identifying and regulating wetlands largely to the States. The constitutional validity of these rules is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court. Petitioners argue that the framework excludes many artificial wetlands recognised under the Ramsar Convention and weakens protections that existed under the 2010 Rules.Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s Asan directions assume significance because they create an additional judicial safeguard by requiring wildlife clearances before mining can proceed within 10 km of wetland conservation reserves.How does this compare with mining around national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and forests?Mining around protected forests and wildlife habitats is governed by a combination of statutes and Supreme Court directions.Within national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, mining is prohibited under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. In addition, the Supreme Court has held that mining is impermissible within one kilometre of the boundary of every national park and wildlife sanctuary across India, unless a larger Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) has already been notified, in which case the larger notified buffer prevails. The Court extended this prohibition nationwide after observing that mining within one kilometre of protected areas is hazardous for wildlife. Projects located within protected areas or likely to affect wildlife habitats also require scrutiny by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife.In forest areas, diversion of forest land for mining requires prior approval of the Central government under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980. Mining projects are also generally subject to environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.