DB seeks reasons for J&K’s silence on Centre's wetland conservation directive

20/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 19: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has sought a detailed explanation from the J&K Government for failing to respond to a Union Environment Ministry communication concerning Integrated Management Plans (IMPs) for three wetland reserves and also questioned the omission of other Ramsar sites from the conservation proposals.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while hearing PIL No. 345/2006 along with PIL No. 11/2017, directed the UT Government to file an affidavit explaining the delay and the reasons for excluding other Ramsar sites from the process.
The direction followed an affidavit filed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in compliance with the Court's July 7, 2026 order.
The Ministry informed the Court that the J&K Government had, on August 25, 2025, forwarded IMPs prepared under the Centrally Sponsored National Plan for Conservation of Aquatic Ecosystems (NPCA) for 2025-26 to 2029-30, seeking consideration and administrative approval for three wetland reserves.
The Centre, however, found that the proposals were not in conformity with the NPCA scheme and, through a communication dated September 10, 2025, asked the UT Government to prepare and submit separate IMPs for each wetland in accordance with the NPCA Guidelines, 2024.
The Ministry informed the High Court that the J&K Government had not responded to the communication till date.
Taking note of the position, the Division Bench directed the UT Government to explain why the Centre's communication had remained unanswered and why separate IMPs for the three wetland reserves had not been resubmitted.
The Court also specifically asked the Government to explain why other Ramsar sites in Jammu and Kashmir had been left out while preparing and forwarding the wetland conservation proposals.
Advocate Nadeem Qadri appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General of India T.M. Shamsi, assisted by advocate Rehana, represented the Centre.
Maha Majeed, assisting counsel appearing for Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, represented the UT Government and sought time to file the requisite response.
The Court granted the UT Government three weeks to place its affidavit on record.
The Union Environment Ministry also informed the Court that the NPCA scheme, which was originally operational till March 31, 2026, had received an interim extension till September 30, 2026. Continuation of the scheme for the 2026-31 financial cycle is currently under consideration by the competent authority, it said.
The proceedings form part of the long-running environmental litigation before the High Court through PIL No. 345/2006, which is being heard along with PIL No. 11/2017.
The Bench directed the UT Government to place on record the reasons for its failure to respond to the Centre as well as the justification, if any, for excluding other Ramsar sites from the conservation planning process.
The matter has been listed along with PIL No. 11/2017 on September 21, 2026. The Court also directed the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, to release Rs 25,000 in favour of advocate Nadeem Qadri.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty