Examine the role of judicial intervention in filling regulatory gaps in India's wetland conservation framework, with reference to the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve case.

Q. Examine the role of judicial intervention in filling regulatory gaps in India's wetland conservation framework, with reference to the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve case. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Wetlands are India's most legally under-protected ecosystems: notified conservation reserves under Section 36A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 enjoy no statutory eco-sensitive buffer, unlike national parks and sanctuaries [1]. The Supreme Court's Asan orders show the judiciary stepping in as a gap-filler — effective, but no substitute for legislation.

The regulatory gap - The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 prohibit encroachment and waste disposal, but leave peripheral impacts — mining, quarrying in the catchment — largely unaddressed [2]. - Asan Conservation Reserve (444 ha, notified 2005 under Sec. 36A) became a Ramsar site in 2020, yet its boundary carried no buffer against extractive activity outside it [3].

Judicial gap-filling: the Asan model - By its interim order of 14 February 2024, the Court barred mining within a 10-km radius of Asan without prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife and/or MoEFCC — judicially creating the buffer the statute omits [4]. - In 2026, hearing Himachal Pradesh's plea for exemption, the Bench clarified the norm applies to all notified wetland conservation reserves nationwide, converting a site-specific safeguard into a general standard [4]. - Continues the tradition of T.N. Godavarman-style continuing mandamus, and pushes India's Ramsar Convention obligations from paper to enforcement [3].

Limits of the judicial route - A norm born of an interim order, not statute, lacks the certainty and democratic deliberation of rule-making. - Implementation gap: the Court itself directed the Centre and NBWL to first identify reserves state-wise before enforcement — protection awaits an inventory [4]. - Federal friction: states with mining revenue at stake contest pan-India mandates on a State List subject.

Judicial intervention has usefully bridged an accountability vacuum, but durable wetland protection needs codification — MoEFCC should notify buffer norms for conservation reserves and strengthen the NPCA management-plan framework [5], so that courts supervise rather than legislate, honouring Article 48A's mandate.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — India Code — Section 36A conservation reserves; absence of statutory buffer unlike parks/sanctuaries 2. Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and Guidelines, MoEFCC — prohibited activities and scope of the domestic wetland regime 3. Ramsar Information Sheet, Asan Conservation Reserve (Site no. 2437) — 444 ha site, notified under Sec. 36A in 2005, Ramsar designation 4. Supreme Court of India — Latest Orders — 14 February 2024 interim order on 10-km mining restraint; 2026 clarification extending it nationwide and directing Centre/NBWL verification 5. National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems (NPCA) Guidelines, 2024, MoEFCC — management-plan framework for wetland conservation