Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Wildlife First v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 464 - Addresses mining activities near wildlife sanctuaries, buffer zones, and eco-sensitive zones (ESZ), referencing ongoing litigation in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (WP No. 202/1995), Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 590, and prohibitory directions on activities within 1 km of sanctuaries ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 287"]. Petitions challenge closure of mining units within the boundary of one kilometre from Kappathgudda Wildlife Sanctuary ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 287"].
Buffer Zones and ESZ - Courts enforce 1 km no-go buffer around protected areas per Godavarman directions; ESZ maxima vary (e.g., maximum distance prescribed... from the boundary of the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary is only 6.2 km and projects located outside the respective maxima of the ESZ allowed ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2133"]. Draft notifications do not trigger buffers until finalized ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 287"]. Modification sought/clarified in IA No. 1000 (Godavarman) re: 10 km ESZ proposal ["2023 0 Supreme(SC) 413"] ["2023 0 Supreme(SC) 413"].
Regulatory Compliance - Strict adherence to MoEF&CC O.M. dated 17.05.2022 and 03.06.2022 (G.V-I); requires SCNBWL clearance for projects ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2133"] ["2023 0 Supreme(SC) 413"]. States/UTs must follow O.M. provisions; no blanket 10 km ban implemented ["2023 0 Supreme(SC) 413"].
Key Insights - Balances conservation with development; activities prohibited only within confirmed buffers/ESZ, not draft zones. Relies on Godavarman lineage for prohibitory directions but permits projects outside ESZ post-compliance (e.g., project activities... outside the respective maxima upheld ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2133"]. Emphasizes Parivesh portal for wildlife clearances ["2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 873"].
Outcome - Writ petitions disposed favoring proponents outside ESZ; ongoing monitoring via NBWL/SCNBWL. Conservation precedence in doubt: protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5721"], but procedural compliance key ["2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 287"] ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2133"] ["2023 0 Supreme(SC) 413"].
In a significant victory for wildlife conservation, the delivered its final ruling in Wildlife First v. Union of India, () SCC OnLine SC 464. This case centered on the contentious proposal to establish a tiger safari in the buffer zone of the Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR), highlighting tensions between tourism development and ecological preservation. The judgment reinforces the primacy of in situ conservation and the exclusive authority of the over tiger reserves, setting a precedent for balancing human interests with biodiversity protection. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197
If you've been following environmental law in India, the question arises: What does Wildlife First v. Union of India, () SCC OnLine SC 464, mean for future wildlife tourism projects? This blog post breaks down the case, its implications, and related legal developments.
The petitioners, led by Wildlife First, challenged the construction of a 'Tiger Safari' in the Pakhrau Block of the Kalagarh Division, within CTR's buffer area. Originally, the NTCA had proposed the site at Karnashram in the Lansdowne Forest Division, but the unilaterally shifted it to Pakhrau. This area forms a vital corridor linking Corbett Tiger Reserve and Rajaji National Park via the Rawasana-Sonanadi Corridor, raising alarms over . 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197
Key parties included:- Petitioner: Wildlife First- Respondents: Union of India, State of Uttarakhand, NTCA, and CZA
Proceedings involved detailed hearings with , Senior Counsel , Additional Solicitor General , and applicant . The dispute underscored regulatory overlaps under the (WLP Act). 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197
presented compelling submissions emphasizing violations of the WLP Act and core conservation principles:
Evolution of guidelines highlighted tourism's creeping influence:
| Guideline Year | Key Provision | Issue ||---------------|---------------|-------|| Pre- | Safaris as only | Aligns with CZA role 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197 || | Limited to injured/orphaned tigers | Rescue-focused 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197 || | Allows zoo animals under | Risks diseases, interference 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197 |
Additional concerns included zoonotic disease risks from zoo relocations and the to prevent harm. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197
Critical WLP Act provisions invoked:
| Section | Relevance ||---------|-----------|| 33(a) Proviso | Bans zoos/safaris without approval 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197 || 38V(4) | Protects buffers 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197 || 38I | Guidelines on animal transfers 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197 |
NTCA's mandate for (TCPs) contrasts with CZA's zoo oversight. The Tourism Guidelines introduced buffer safaris to ease core-area pressure, shifting from pure conservation. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197
Aligning with eco-centric principles, the Court:- Affirmed NTCA's exclusive domain, rejecting CZA's site change and Guidelines.- Halted construction citing in corridors, invoking the .- Ordered demolition, restoration (e.g., Jim Corbett model with staff deployment), and TCP enforcement.
The Court's deliberations emphasized eco-centric conservation, precautionary and , and NTCA's exclusive domain for tiger reserves. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197
This ruling clarifies tiger safaris as tourism tools, not conservation measures.
The decision resonates with other wildlife and forest judgments. For instance, courts have consistently prioritized animal welfare over traditions, as in challenges to animal fights under the and WLP Act. The court ruled that traditional animal fights are impermissible... emphasizing that cultural practices cannot override legal protections. 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1500
In tiger corridor protections, the (NGT) addressed encroachments: Application filed addressing human-tiger conflict, encroachments... directs the state to remove encroachments near protected forest areas. 2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 377 This mirrors CTR's corridor concerns.
NGT also upheld forest conservation: The court affirms the protection of forest areas under the ... strict compliance with environmental laws. 2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3384
(ESZs) cases reinforce non-retroactive prohibitions: Existing industries established before the Eco Sensitive Zone Notification cannot be presumed to be polluting without evidence. 2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 2030 Similarly, new safaris in buffers require rigorous scrutiny.
These precedents underscore the judiciary's eco-centric stance, applying restorative measures where harm occurs.
Recommendations include enforcing TCPs, banning zoo transfers, and monitoring corridors. This ruling guides nationwide tiger reserve management, prioritizing WLP Act over tourism. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 197
Note: This post provides general insights based on public judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific matters.
#TigerConservation #SupremeCourtRuling #WildlifeProtection
Union of India which was Writ Petition No.202 of 1995 [(2014) 6 SCC 738], as well as, in view of another decision of the Supreme Court in Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India and [(2014) 6 SCC 590]. ... Union of India, Goa Foundation vs. Union of India (supra). 6. ... Union of India (supra), Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India (supra), as also the d....
Union of India and Others . The first is one dated 3rd June, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.V-I’). ... (C).No.28314/2024. ... of India as well as various State/Union Territory Governments shall strictly follow the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated17th May 2022 issued by MoEF & CC.” ... (C) No.28314/2024, the maximum distance prescribed, based on the direction from the boundary of the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary is only 6.....
Union of India, (2011) 15 SCC 791] of this Court, however, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, was directed to give a final opportunity to all States/Union Territories to respond to the proposal and also to refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife the ... Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 740] of this Court is modified by this Court in IA No. 1000 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. ... ....
During the pendency of the appeal, the Principal Chief Conservator Forest Wildlife and Chief Wildlife Warden, West Bengal issued a licence of breeders to the respondent No. 1 on August 9, 2024. 10. ... Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that, office of the appellant No. 1 has applied its mind with regard to the application filed online. He has contended that, the authorities have exercised their discretion in accordance with law. ... Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted t....
Union of India and another reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 661.”8. ... Union of India and Another reported in (2023), 9 SCC 322 and more particularly, to paragraph 45.2 (which corresponds to paragraph 44(ii) in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 661). 9. ... Union of India (WP(C) No. 24/2016) of the Supreme Court. 38. ... Similarly, every citizen of India is endowed with the duty to protect ....
In contravention of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors. Case. ... Union of India 1997) 2 SCC 267 and that Respondent No. 6 has unlawfully extended their activities to encroach upon land bearing Khasra No. 78, measuring approximately 54 acres, located in Village Chandanpura, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal (M.P.). ... Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 267], thereby....
Union of India 1997) 2 SCC 267 and that Respondent No. 6 has unlawfully extended their activities to encroach upon land bearing Khasra No. 78, measuring approximately 54 acres, located in Village Chandanpura, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal (M.P.). ... Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 267], thereby necessitating strict compliance with forest conservation laws. The principles of sustainable development but also pose a serious threat to the ecological balance, biodiversity, and environmental i....
(2004) 11 SCC 402 = 2005 SCC (L&S) 55 = 2004 SCC OnLine SC 368, [12] Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592 = (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 411 = 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1876, [13] Union of India v. ... Union of India and Ors., (2022) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 297 the Supreme court said that ....
(C) No.7340 of 2012 STP Limited, a registered Company under the Indian Companies Act, 1976 – Versus- The Union of India & Others, was disposed of by the Hon’ble Single Judge of High Court of Jharkhand vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2024 (already extracted hereinabove) giving liberty to the Appellant ... (C) No.7340 of 2012 “S T P Limited, A registered company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 Versus The Union of India & Others” seeking issuance of appropriate writ/direction for quashing the orde....
Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118]. This Court held that in case of a doubt, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. ... He places reliance on the Management Plan of Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary 2015-2015 to 2024-25 prepared by the Resource Survey and Management Division, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the Management Plan) wherein Chapter 7 is titled as 'Tourism, Interpretation and Conservation ... Godavarman Thirumulpad v UOI and O....
● Suresh C.Singal and Ors., v. The State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in MANU/SC/0491/2025. ● Kothari Polymers Ltd., and others v. SIU(X)/SPE/CBI reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2078. ● Tarina Sen v. Union of India and another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2969. ● K.Bharathi Devi and another v. State of Telangana and another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384.
2025, in SLP(c) Nos. 2868/2018]; and (vi). State of Punjab & ors. v. Jagjit Singh & ors. , reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148. 13. In the above premises, Mr. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the appellants, herein, has submitted that this Court would be pleased to interfere with the judgment & order, dated 07.02. 12. Mr. Pathak, learned senior counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i). State of Karnataka & ors. v. M. L. Kesari & ors. , reported in (2010) 9 ....
2025, in SLP(c) Nos. 2868/2018], and (v). State of Punjab & ors. v. Jagjit Singh & ors. , reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 15. In the above premises, Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants, herein, has submitted that this Court would be pleased to interfere with the judgment & order, dated 07.02. 14. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (i). Jaggo v. Union of India & ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 (ii). ....
8. The learned Senior Counsel has relied on various Judgments in support of his submissions that the petitioners’ services should be absorbed, which are as follows: 1. 2024 SCC Online Sc 3826 ( Jaggo –vs- Union of India & Ors). 2. 2010 (9) scc 247 (State of Karnataka –vs- M.L.Kesari) 3. 2024 (9) SCC 327 ( Vinod Kumar vs- Union of India) 4. 2017 (1) SCC 148
8. The power of the Courts to grant bail to a person accused of an offence under the PMLA Act is circumscribed by Section 45 of the Act. It is apposite to refer to the said provision, which reads as follows: 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent opposed the application. He contended that the petitioner has played a pivotal role in the fraudulent disbursement of loans from the Bank. The loans were sanctioned in the names of various borrowers without their consent. Rs.1.76/- crore was credited to the petitioner’s bank account and the same was withdrawn by him. The said money quali....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
