Author: Shreya Rajeev Warrier, G.J. Advani Law College, Mumbai
Case Title: M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 230 of 2001
To the Point
The M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India case marks a critical juncture in Indian environmental jurisprudence, where wetlands, an essential but overlooked ecosystems were recognized for their ecological value. With climate change accelerating, this judgment plays a pivotal role in shaping wetland conservation, urban climate resilience, and compliance with global sustainability goals. This article analyses the legal implications of the case, evaluates its enforcement status, and contextualizes its contemporary relevance alongside global trends.
Use of Legal Jargon
Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs): Areas identified for special protection due to their ecological fragility.
Doctrine of Public Trust: A legal doctrine that holds that natural resources are preserved for public use and the government must protect and maintain them.
Sustainable Urban Development: Planning and managing cities to balance ecological, social, and economic needs.
Precautionary Principle: Environmental protection strategy that advocates preventive action in the face of uncertainty.
The judgment in M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India stands as a testament to the judiciary’s evolving ecological conscience, anchored firmly in environmental legal doctrine. Drawing upon the Doctrine of Public Trust as articulated in MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388] the Court asserted that wetlands are public assets the State must protect for both current and future generations.
Recognizing wetlands as Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZs), the Court mandated their notification under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, thereby embedding their protection within the constitutional framework of Article 21 (Right to Life).
This judgment also exemplified Judicial Activism, with the Court actively monitoring executive compliance and directing wetland mapping and preservation. This further aids in fulfilling constitutional mandates under Article 48A. Importantly, the ruling touched on Sustainable Urban Development, acknowledging wetlands’ crucial role in mitigating urban flooding and ensuring groundwater recharge. These issues are central to climate resilience today.
By aligning domestic mandates with international obligations under the Ramsar Convention, the Court positioned wetlands not merely as natural features but as indispensable ecological infrastructure, crucial to India’s environmental future.
The Proof
India is home to more than 7.5 million hectares of wetlands, a significant portion of which faces threats from pollution, rapid urbanization, and widespread encroachment. In the M.K. Balakrishnan case, the Supreme Court of India highlighted the inadequacy in the implementation of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. The court emphasized the need to notify wetlands, protect them from encroachments, and establish scientific criteria for identification and management. In the context of climate change, urban flooding, and biodiversity loss, the directives in this case remain more relevant than ever.
Abstract
Wetlands are ecologically fragile zones crucial for biodiversity, water purification, groundwater recharge, and climate resilience. In an era of rapid urbanization and climate uncertainty, the landmark case M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India stands today as a pillar of judicial intervention in the environmental governance of wetlands. This article presents a legal case analysis of the judgment and subsequent orders by the Supreme Court, with a focus on the evolving regulatory framework, key developments in implementation, and the ongoing role of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Comparative insights and constitutional grounding underscore the need for stronger enforcement, decentralised environmental decision-making, and community participation in the protection of these vital ecosystems.
Introduction
Petitioners’ Contention:
The petitioners, environmental lawyers and public-spirited individuals sought judicial intervention due to the Central Government’s failure to notify wetlands under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010, and the lack of action under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Issues Raised:
Whether the Union and State governments had failed in their statutory duty to identify, notify, and protect wetlands.
Whether the inaction violated the right to life under Article 21.
Whether judicial directions were required to ensure compliance and frame an institutional mechanism for wetland protection.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning:
Expansive Interpretation of Article 21 – The Supreme Court held that the right to a clean and healthy environment, including access to functioning ecosystems like wetlands, is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The destruction or degradation of wetlands amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
Failure of Executive Implementation – The Court noted the non-compliance of the MoEFCC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) and directed the implementation of the Wetlands Rules. The lack of notification of wetlands despite identification was considered a dereliction of statutory duty.
Supreme Court Orders (2017 onwards):
Recognized wetlands in India and directed their protection.
Mandated demarcation, ground-truthing, and public disclosure.
Prohibited any construction or land conversion activities in or around notified wetlands.
Ordered implementation of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, replacing the 2010 Rules.
Legal and Policy Implications
i. Creation of CAMPA & Wetlands Authorities – Although not directly through this case, it contributed momentum to key institutions like CAMPA and State Wetland Authorities under the Rules of 2017.
ii. Role in Urban Planning and Climate Resilience – With increasing urban flooding (e.g., Chennai, Bengaluru, Delhi), the Supreme Court’s emphasis on wetlands as natural buffers has become crucial in shaping sustainable urban planning norms.
iii. Influence on NGT Orders – The NGT, in 2022 and 2023, has relied heavily on M.K. Balakrishnan to enforce wetlands protection in multiple states, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra.
Comparative Jurisprudence:
Lovelace v. Canada (UNHRC): Linked environmental degradation with Indigenous rights under ICCPR.
Milieudefensie v. Shell (Netherlands, 2021): Ordered Shell to reduce carbon emissions, citing environmental responsibility under human rights principles.
Juliana v. United States: Youth-led constitutional challenge highlighting intergenerational climate justice.
The Balakrishnan case reflects a similar trajectory seeking environmental justice through constitutional interpretation, administrative accountability, and proactive judicial review.
Recent Developments (2023–2025)
Why Wetlands Matter in 2025
Wetlands cover approximately 4.6% of India’s land area and perform essential ecological functions—supporting biodiversity, filtering pollutants, mitigating floods, and acting as carbon sinks. However, over 30% of India’s wetlands have disappeared in the last three decades, largely due to unregulated development, encroachments, and policy neglect. The Supreme Court of India, through the case M.K.
Balakrishnan v. Union of India, has played a significant role in shaping India’s wetland governance by recognizing them as vital components of the environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Order (July 2023): Directed protection of 30,000 more wetlands and required states to demarcate these areas within 3 months.
NGT Action (2022–2024):
Ashtamudi Lake Wetland Order – directed Kerala officials to take punitive action for encroachments and pollution.
Palla Wetlands, Delhi – protected under NGT directives invoking the Balakrishnan judgment.
Limitations and Challenges:
Though M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India marked a turning point in wetland jurisprudence, several criticisms persist regarding its execution and broader legal implications.
1. Implementation Gaps
Despite robust judicial mandates, enforcement has been patchy. Several states delayed or failed to notify wetlands under the 2010 and 2017 Rules. Reports by the CAG and civil society highlight persistent executive inaction, raising concerns about the efficacy of judicial interventions lacking administrative follow through.
2. Scientific Ambiguity
The judgment lacked ecological nuance. It did not distinguish among wetland types or prioritize them based on ecological services or vulnerability, limiting its applicability in technical conservation efforts.
3. Centralized Model, Weak Local Participation
The Rules emphasized centralized governance, sidelining panchayats and local bodies. This top-down model undermines democratic environmental stewardship.
4. Judicial Overreach Concerns
While often celebrated as judicial activism, the Court’s ongoing supervision of wetland policy has been critiqued as encroaching on executive functions, potentially blurring institutional boundaries and weakening democratic accountability.
5. Weak Policy Integration
The ruling underutilized the opportunity to integrate wetlands into broader climate resilience, urban flood management, and Smart City policies. As a result, wetlands remain peripheral in India’s climate adaptation and urban planning frameworks.
Conclusion: A Living Judgment for a Dying Ecosystem
M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India is more than a legal victory, it is a foundational case in India’s environmental jurisprudence that protects wetlands as essential ecological zones. The judgment aligns with global environmental concerns.
As urbanization, climate variability, and ecological degradation intensify, the juridical protection of wetlands serves not only ecological interests but upholds human rights, intergenerational equity, and constitutional morality.
Courts must now ensure enforcement, capacity-building of State authorities, and encourage community stewardship of these vital ecosystems. Wetlands are not wastelands—they are water banks for our climate future.
FAQS
Q1. What is the takeaway from the M.K. Balakrishnan case?
The Supreme Court recognized wetlands as essential ecosystems and directed the creation of a national inventory and conservation framework.
Q2. How is this case relevant in 2025?
As Indian cities face severe urban flooding, wetland degradation directly impacts flood management, biodiversity, and climate adaptation.
Q3. What legal mechanisms currently protect wetlands in India?
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017
Environment Protection Act, 1986
Supreme Court Directions in M.K. Balakrishnan
Public Trust Doctrine under Article 21.
Q4. Are there global cases similar to M.K. Balakrishnan?
Yes. Juliana v. United States and Milieudefensie v. Shell are landmark international cases demanding state and corporate responsibility for ecological protection and climate action.
Q5. What reforms are needed today?
Strict implementation of mapping and management protocols.
Legislative backing for CWRA.
Community participation in monitoring wetland health.
Inclusion of wetlands in urban climate action plans and budgetary provisions.
REFERENCES
M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56633470/
https://greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/news_updates/14420_6.pdf
Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 and 2017
https://indianwetlands.in/our-work/wetlands-conservation-and-management-rules-2017/
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/4316/1/ep_act_1986.pdf
