1. Illegal construction and tree felling in Tiger Reserve — Establishment of Tiger Safari in buffer zone — Compliance with Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. (Para 1 , 122 , 130 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 197
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal – Applicant
I.A. No. 20650 of 2023 In Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995
Decided On : 06-03-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Shagun Thakur,Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava,Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Mr. S. S. Rebello, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, AOR Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Gupta, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv. Petitioner/Applicant-in-person Dr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv.
For the Parties :Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Shagun Thakur,Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava,Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Mr. S. S. Rebello, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, AOR Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Gupta, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv. Petitioner/Applicant-in-person Dr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv.
The establishment of a Tiger Safari in buffer zones is permissible under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, provided it adheres to ecological and statutory guidelines, emphasizing the public trust doctrine in environmental protection.
Headnote:(A) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 33(a), 38(O)(b), 38V - Establishment of Tiger Safari - Allegations of illegal construction and felling of trees in Corbett Tiger Reserve - Court emphasizes the need for ecological protection and adherence to statutory provisions for wildlife conservation - The establishment of a Tiger Safari at Pakhrau is deemed legal under certain conditions, but illegal constructions and tree felling were noted - The public trust doctrine is invoked to emphasize the State's duty to protect natural resources. (Paras 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.10, 159, 162)
(B) Public Trust Doctrine - The State is a trustee of natural resources, and cannot permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes - The doctrine mandates the protection of public interests in environmental matters. (Paras 133-136)
(C) Ecological Restitution - The court directs the establishment of a committee to assess environmental damage and recommend restoration measures in the Corbett Tiger Reserve. (Paras 159, 161)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- environmental law
- administrative law
- criminal law
Table of Contents
2. Legality of establishing safaris in buffer zones — Conflict between conservation and tourism — Validity of 2016 versus 2019 Guidelines for animal sourcing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Adoption of ecocentrism over anthropocentrism — Distinction between ex-situ zoos and in-situ rehabilitation safaris — State's duty as trustee under Public Trust Doctrine. (Para 68 , 79 , 99 , 100 , 134 , 135 )
4. Tiger Safaris in buffer zones must prioritize in-situ rehabilitation of injured or conflict tigers over zoo-sourced animals to maintain ecological integrity. (Para 100 , 103 )
5. Pakhrau Safari approved subject to 2016 Guidelines — Committee appointed for ecological restoration and cost recovery — CBI investigation continued — Disciplinary proceedings ordered. (Para 161 )
6. How do Tiger Safaris differ from Zoos under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972?
Zoos focus on ex-situ conservation and public exhibition of captive animals. Tiger Safaris, as conceptualized by the NTCA, are intended for the in-situ rehabilitation of injured, conflict, or orphaned tigers unfit for re-wilding, emphasizing conservation over tourism. (Para 79 , 96 , 99 , 100 )
7. Which guidelines govern the selection of animals for Tiger Safaris in buffer zones?
The court upheld the 2016 Guidelines, which restrict animal sourcing to injured, conflict, or orphaned tigers from the same landscape. It quashed the 2019 Guidelines' provision allowing animals to be sourced from zoos, as this contradicts tiger conservation purposes. (Para 96 , 99 , 100 , 161 )
8. What is the State's obligation under the Public Trust Doctrine regarding natural resources?
The State acts as a trustee of all natural resources meant for public use. It has a legal duty to protect these resources and cannot convert them into private ownership or commercial use unless it is in the public interest and good faith. (Para 134 , 135 )
9. What is the principle of ecological restitution in cases of environmental damage?
Reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out the consequences of an illegal act and re-establish the original state. The State must implement active restoration measures localized to the damaged ecosystem and recover costs from responsible parties. (Para 151 , 156 , 158 )
10. What is the purpose of a buffer zone in a Tiger Reserve?
Buffer zones provide a lesser degree of habitat protection than core areas to ensure the integrity of critical habitats, facilitate tiger dispersal, and promote coexistence between wildlife and human activity based on scientific criteria. (Para 42 , 88 , 89 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
INDEX
| I. | BACKGROUD |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
| III. | STATUTORY PROVISIONS |
| IV. | GUIDELINES ISSUED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES |
| V. | CONSIDERATION |
| (a) | Consideration as to whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing or not. |
| (b) | Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau is legal or not. |
| (c) | Illegal construction and felling of trees |
| (d) | ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine |
| (e) | Concern of the CEC |
| (f) | Principle of Ecological Restitution |
| VI. | CONCLUSIONS |
ABBREVIATIONS
| CBD | Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 |
| CBI | Central Bureau of Investigation |
| CEC | Central Empowered Committee |
| CZA | Central Zoo Authority |
| DFO | Divisional Forest Officer |
| ERC | Elephant Rehabilitation/Rescue Centres |
| ESZ | Eco Sensitive Zone |
| FAC | Forest Advisory Committee |
| FC | Forest Clearance |
| FC Act | Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 |
| FSI | Forest Survey of India |
| HoFF | Head of Forest Forces |
| IFS | Indian Forest Service |
| IFSR | India State of Forest Report |
| MDF | Moderate Dense Forest |
| Mo EF&CC | Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change |
| NPV | Net Present Value |
| NTCA | National Tiger Conservation Authority |
| OF | Open Forest |
| PCCF | Principal Chief Conservator of Forests SC, |
| NBWL | Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life |
| SOP | Standard Operating Procedure |
| sq.km. | square kilometer |
| TCP | Tiger Conservation Plan (“TCP |
| VDF | Very Dense Forest |
| WII | Wildlife Institute of India |
| WLP Act | Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 |
“The tiger perishes without the forest and the forest perishes without its tigers. Therefore, the tiger should stand guard over the forest and the forest should protect all its tigers.”
This is how the importance of the tigers in the ecosystem has been succinctly described in ‘Mahabharta’. The existence of the forest is necessary for the protection of tigers. In turn, if the tiger is protected, the ecosystem which revolves around him is also protected. The tiger represents the apex of the animal pyramid and the protection of their habitat must be a priority. “A healthy tiger population is an indicator of sustainable development in the 13 tiger range countries”1[Midori Paxton]
In spite of such an importance given to the tiger and many statutory provisions enacted for the conservation and protection of the tiger, the present case depicts a sorry state of affairs as to how human greed has led to devastating one of the most celebrated abodes of tigers i.e. the Corbett Tiger Reserve.
When we consider this issue, it will also be apposite to refer to the restoration experiment at the Yellowstone National Park of the United States of America.
The impact of the absence of carnivores in a forest and the regenerative effect on their re-introduction was witnessed in the recent past in the famous Yellowstone National Park.
Wolves were hunted down by the mankind and the last recorded wolf in the park was shot down by a park ranger in the year 1926. Resultantly, owing to lack of apex predators in the park, the population of deer and other herbivores rose significantly. Efforts made by humans to control the herbivore population proved unsuccessful and resultantly these animals grazed away the vegetation which had the cascading effect of soil erosion and depletion of forest. As an ambitious restoration experiment, the scientists re-introduced a pack of wolves in the Yellowstone National Park in the year 1995.
Once the wolves arrived, even though few in number, the same had remarkable effects. The obvious outcome of such reintroduction was the reduction in the population of deer; but even more
