The National Green Tribunal's order in Rakhi Bala Singare v. State of Madhya Pradesh marks a decisive affirmation of the legal sanctity of wetlands under India's environmental governance framework. By directing a joint investigative committee to assess unauthorized tourism infrastructure on Champak Lake, the Tribunal has reinforced that ecological protection supersedes commercial convenience, especially where statutory prohibitions are clear and unambiguous.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ms. Rakhi Bala Singare, challenged the continued operation of adventurous tourism activities - including zip lines, parasailing, and temporary kiosks - on Champak Lake in Panchmarhi, Madhya Pradesh. The lake, spanning 43.400 hectares, is classified as a wetland under the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, which mandate strict protection for water bodies exceeding 2.25 hectares. The applicant alleged that these activities, permitted by state authorities, have led to ecological degradation through solid waste dumping, untreated sewage discharge, and permanent encroachments.
Procedural History
- 15.10.2013: Permission granted to Satpura Adventure Sports Club for adventurous sports on Champak Lake
- 01.09.2015: Additional permission granted to Respondent No.7 for zipline construction
- 2025: Applicant filed Original Application No.09/2026(CZ) before the National Green Tribunal
- 23.01.2026: Hearing held; Tribunal issued notice and directed formation of a Joint Committee
Relief Sought
The applicant sought immediate cessation of all tourism-related activities on Champak Lake, enforcement of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and directions to the State Pollution Control Board to initiate action against illegal discharges under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether tourism infrastructure and commercial activities on a water body exceeding 2.25 hectares constitute prohibited activities under Rule 4(2) of the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and whether the State’s failure to notify the lake as a wetland absolves it of statutory obligations.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant relied on Rule 4(2)(vi) of the Wetland Rules, which prohibits any construction of a permanent nature within 50 meters of the mean high flood level, except for boat jetties. She cited Section 2(g) defining wetlands to include natural lakes, and argued that the Supreme Court’s directive in M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India mandates protection of all water bodies >2.25 hectares. She further invoked the Public Trust Doctrine from M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath to assert that the State, as trustee, cannot permit ecologically destructive activities. The discharge of untreated sewage was cited as a violation of Section 24 and 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
For the Respondent
The Respondents did not file a written reply prior to the hearing. However, the Tribunal noted that the State had issued permissions for tourism infrastructure without conducting environmental impact assessments or notifying the lake under the Wetland Rules. No legal defense was presented to justify the continued operation of prohibited activities.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, particularly Rule 4(2), which explicitly prohibits conversion of wetlands for non-wetland uses, setting up industries, solid waste dumping, and discharge of untreated effluents. The Court emphasized that the definition of wetland under Section 2(g) includes natural lakes regardless of their use, and that the 2.25-hectare threshold is a mandatory trigger for protection under the Rules.
"The State cannot evade its statutory duty by merely failing to notify a wetland. The obligation to conserve arises from the ecological character of the water body, not from administrative notification."
The Tribunal distinguished between permissible recreational use and commercial exploitation. While passive tourism may be allowed under the principle of 'wise use', the construction of permanent structures, ziplines, and kiosks constituted impermissible encroachment. The Court also held that the State Pollution Control Board’s failure to act under Sections 24, 25, and 33A of the Water Act, 1974 amounted to dereliction of statutory duty.
The Tribunal rejected the notion that administrative delay in notification absolves the State of its obligations. It cited constitutional principles of rule of law and public trust, holding that public functionaries cannot act arbitrarily or in violation of environmental statutes without accountability. The Court underscored that Section 60 of the Water Act renders its provisions overriding any inconsistent state permissions.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The National Green Tribunal held that tourism infrastructure on Champak Lake violates the Wetland (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, and that untreated sewage discharge contravenes the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Tribunal directed the formation of a Joint Committee to assess ecological damage and submit a compliance report within four weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Wetland Status Is Not Dependent on Notification
- Practitioners must argue that protection under the Wetland Rules, 2017, is automatic for any water body exceeding 2.25 hectares, irrespective of whether it has been formally notified
- State authorities cannot claim immunity by citing procedural delays in notification
- Any permission granted for construction or commercial use on such water bodies is ultra vires and void
Tourism Permits Must Align with Ecological Safeguards
- Commercial tourism activities on wetlands require prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006
- Temporary structures like tents and kiosks may still violate Rule 4(2)(iv) if they result in solid waste accumulation or sewage discharge
- Ziplines, cable rides, and permanent platforms are presumed to be "permanent construction" under Rule 4(2)(vi) unless proven otherwise
Pollution Control Boards Must Proactively Enforce
- Section 33A empowers the State PCB to issue binding directions to halt pollution
- Failure to act constitutes a breach of statutory duty under Section 48 (government department liability)
- Petitioners may now seek direct enforcement of Section 33 applications before NGT without waiting for PCB action
