Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1925
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary – Appellant
I.A. No. 153500 of 2024 [Applications for Direction], I.A. No. 153501 of 2024 [Application for exemption from filing official translation], I.A. No. 153502 of 2024 [Application for Intervention], I.A. No. 251558 of 2025 [Applications for Intervention], I.A. No. 252324 of 2025 [Application for placing on record Additional Facts and Documents], I.A. No. 252325 of 2025 [Application for exemption from filing official translation], I.A. No. 252948 of 2025 [Application for Direction], I.A. No. 252949 of 2025 [Application for exemption from filing official English Translation of Annexures], I.A. No. 265049, 265353 of 2025 [Application for Clarification/Modification and for filing Additional Documents], I.A. No. 252948 of 2025, I.A. No. 268196 of 2025 [Application for Modification], I.A. No. 153500 of 2024, I.A. No.........of 2025, Diary Nos. 265620-265621 of 2025 [Applications for Impleadment and Direction], I.A. No.........of 2025, Diary No. 272221 of 2025 [Applications for Direction]
WITH
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
In The Matter of: Dr. Daya Shankar Srivastava – Applicant
Steel Authority of India Ltd. – Applicant
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
Decided On : 13-11-2025
The court affirmed the duty of the State to declare the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, ensuring protection of ecological zones while safeguarding the rights of local tribals.
Headnote:(A) Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 18, 19, and 26A - Duty to protect wildlife and forests - Declaration of Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary, encompassing approximately 31,468.25 hectares, mandated, excluding six compartments involved in mining. Cited provisions highlight the State's duty to protect ecological zones and the necessity to comply with statutory obligations. (Paras 1, 14, 102)
(B) Environmental Protection - The State must not impede existing rights of tribals during the declaration of wildlife sanctuaries, ensuring that recognized rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 are upheld. (Paras 86, 92)
(C) Contempt of Court - The repeated changes in the State's position indicated non-compliance with prior court orders, raising concerns about its commitment to wildlife protection and statutory duties. (Paras 16, 25, 30)
(D) Affidavit Findings - The Government of Jharkhand's affidavit indicates a commitment to protect the Saranda area, though it expressed concerns regarding mining operations and community rights. The State's delay in action was criticized as counterproductive. (Paras 10, 48, 100)
Facts of the case:
The original notification from 1968 established the area as a game sanctuary; subsequent mining projects raised biodiversity and ecological concerns. Notably, the Saranda forest is essential for several endangered species. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The ecological importance of Saranda area underscores the necessity for its protection as a wildlife sanctuary, while balancing human rights considerations. (Paras 12, 18)
Issues: The core issue pertains to the obligation of the State to declare critical biological zones as wildlife sanctuaries without infringing on tribal rights. (Paras 20, 67)
Ratio Decidendi: The court mandated the establishment of the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary, emphasizing wildlife protection responsibilities under the WP Act, while assuring the protection of indigenous rights under the FRA. (Paras 81, 86)
Result: The State is directed to notify the sanctuary within three months. The modifications proposed by the State are partially permitted after recognizing the importance of the habitat. (Paras 102-104)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ecological significance of saranda forest area. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. concerns on socio-economic impacts of wildlife sanctuary declaration. (Para 36 , 42 , 43) |
| 3. duty of state to protect ecological zones. (Para 37 , 39 , 40) |
| 4. wii's ecological report on the saranda area. (Para 46 , 61 , 65) |
| 5. court's directives regarding declaration of wildlife sanctuary. (Para 102 , 103 , 104) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
| INDEX | |
| I. | INTRODUCTION |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS |
| III. | DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| (i) KEY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE WP ACT | |
| (ii) REPORT BY THE WII | |
| (iii) NATIONAL FOREST POLICY, 1998 AND NATIONAL WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN, 2017 | |
| (iv) JUSTICE M.B. SHAH COMMISSION REPORT | |
| (v) STAND TAKEN BY THE STATE OF JHARKHAND | |
| IV. | CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS |
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The issue in the present matter pertains to the Saranda forest area in the State of Jharkhand which is undisputedly one of the most pristine Sal forests in the world. It is a biodiversity hotspot, interconnected with forests in the States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh, creating a contiguous wildlife corridor. The region is rich in biodiversity and wildlife and includes within its confines the critically endangered and endemic Sal Forest Tortoise, four horned antelope, Asian palm civet, wild elephants, leopards, sambar and chital deer, bison, barking deer, and numerous species of birds and reptiles.
2. The erstwhile unified State of Bihar, by a notification bearing No. 1168F dated 16th February 19681 [Hereinafter “1968 Notification.”] declared an extent of 31,468.25 hectares (approx. 314 sq. kms) in the Saranda forest area as the “Saranda Game Sanctuary.” This was done pursuant to relevant provisions of the Bihar Forest, Hunting, Shooting and Fishing Rules, 1958. On bifurcation of the then State of Bihar into States of Bihar and Jharkhand, this area now falls within the State of Jharkhand.
3. One Dr. R.K. Singh, a distinguished wildlife scientist, being aggrieved by the fact that the Government of Jharkhand2 [Hereinafter “GoJ”] and Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change3 [Hereinafter “MoEF&CC”] had failed to declare the Eco-Sensitive Zone4 [Hereinafter “ESZ”] in respect of Sasangada/Saranda Sanctuary based in the West Singbhum District of Jharkhand, filed an Original Application being OA No. 59/2020/EZ before the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata.5 [Hereinafter “NGT”] It was specifically contended in the said OA that the two massive iron ore mining projects, Kiriburu and Maghehatuburu, have chronically disturbed the habitat of wild animals in this locality. It was further contended that the protection of wildlife is mandatory under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 19726 [Hereinafter “WP Act”] so also that the pristine forest areas need to be protected under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 bearing in mind the directions given by this Court in the present proceedings. A relief was, therefore, sought to notify an ESZ around Sasangada/Saranda Game Sanctuary and the adjoining Reserve Forests in a time bound manner.
4. The learned NGT, vide order dated 12th July 2022, passed the following direction:
“34. Annexure-2 to the Original Application mentions that the area of the Saranda/Sasangada Forest is about 31,468.25 hectares. This is a huge area of pristine forest and whether it has been declared as Game Sanctuary or not, it is nevertheless a repository of some of the finest Sal Forest in the country having rich wildlife and requires protection and preservation and, therefore, a direction is issued to the State Respondents to consider whether the same needs to be declared as a Sanctuary since it has nowhere been stated by the State Respondents in their various affidavits that this massive area does not have any wildlife.” [Emphasis supplied]
5. Thereafter, since no action was taken by the GoJ in this respect, an IA came to be filed before this Court in
