[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.](/upsc-mains-answer/examine-role-judicial-intervention-filling-regulatory-17e3d3a)

Conservation reserves are declared under Section 36A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, but unlike national parks and sanctuaries they carry no statutory eco-sensitive buffer [1]. The Supreme Court's Asan orders show the judiciary supplying this missing regulatory layer — a corrective that is environmentally sound yet institutionally uneasy.

The regulatory gap

• The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 (under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986) govern notification and "wise use", but leave peripheral land uses like mining thinly regulated [2].
• Asan, at the Asan–Yamuna confluence, was designated a Ramsar site in 2020 and hosts 330 bird species including the critically endangered Baer's pochard and white-rumped vulture — high ecological value, no buffer protection [3].

Judicial filling of the gap

• The SC's interim order of 14 February 2024 barred mining within a 10-km radius of Asan without prior approval of the Standing Committee of the NBWL and/or MoEFCC [4].
• In 2026 the Bench clarified, on Himachal Pradesh's plea for exemption, that the norm applies to all notified wetland conservation reserves nationwide, for parity [4].
• This creates a judicially crafted buffer regime, strengthening India's Ramsar compliance where the executive had not acted.

Limits and concerns

• A site-specific interim order was generalised through oral clarification, not statute — raising questions of precedent and legislative competence [4].
• Enforcement is contingent: the Centre and NBWL must first map reserves state-wise, an administrative bottleneck [4].
• States pleaded federal and revenue concerns, as mining leases within 10 km stand frozen pending clearance [4].

Judicial intervention here is a stopgap that converts a conservation vacuum into an enforceable safeguard, continuing the Article 21 environmental jurisprudence tradition. The durable answer lies with the executive: MoEFCC should codify graded buffer norms for conservation reserves under the 2017 Rules, backed by NPCA funding and State Wetland Authorities [5]. Judicially seeded, legislatively secured protection best serves both ecological integrity and cooperative federalism.