Back
Issues Notice to Declare Mullayanagiri Hills as Important Wildlife Conservation Reserve
In a significant judicial intervention concerning the ecological future of the Western Ghats, the has issued notices to the and various forest authorities regarding a (PIL) that demands the formal declaration of Mullayanagiri Hills as a "Conservation Reserve." The matter, heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, reflects the escalating friction between unchecked tourism-driven infrastructure development and the urgent necessity for habitat protection in one of India’s most sensitive forest regions.
The legal challenge has been initiated by and the . The core of their plea lies in the invocation of , which empowers State Governments to declare any area owned by the government—particularly areas adjacent to national parks or sanctuaries—as a Conservation Reserve. By securing this legal status, the petitioners hope to curb the rapid, often unauthorized, expansion of construction activities that threatens the ecological integrity of the Mullayanagiri region.
The Ecological Significance and The Petitioner's Grievance
The Mullayanagiri Hills, home to the highest peak in Karnataka, are not merely a geographical landmark but an essential part of the Western Ghats, a global biodiversity hotspot. The region falls within the (ESZ) of the Bhadra Tiger Reserve, a feature underscored by a notification from the , which designated 740.76 square kilometers surrounding the Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary to prevent human encroachment.
Despite this protective mandate, the petitioners contend that the implementation of conservation policies has been systematically stalled or diluted. According to the counsel for the Trust, the government has moved the goalposts multiple times since . Initial draft proposals purportedly included a vast expanse of nearly 23,000 acres for protection. Over time, successive drafts have seen this committed area shrink to a mere 10,000 acres. The petitioners expressed grave apprehension, stating that the remaining extent would "constantly be eaten up" in a similar manner if judicial restraint is not exercised. The plea highlights the immediate risk of landslides and the degradation of the landscape caused by unregulated tourist operations and ongoing construction that persists in the absence of a legal Conservation Reserve tag.
A History of Administrative Inertia
The current litigation is not the first instance where the judiciary has stepped in to hold the State accountable for the protection of Mullayanagiri. Back in , the directed that a declaration under , as proposed by the , should be published within a four-month timeframe. Furthermore, the court had issued clear guidelines that once the declaration was notified, the government must take immediate steps to constitute a Conservation Reserve Management Committee under .
The fact that these conditions remain unfulfilled more than five years later sits at the heart of the current conflict. The petitioners’ frustration is evident in their submission that, despite repeated draft proposals surfacing across various administrative levels, there is an apparent lack of political or bureaucratic will to formalize the protection status. By returning to the , the petitioners are seeking not just a declaration, but a comprehensive restraint on further building approvals and tourist operations until a robust management framework is firmly in place.
The Legal Framework: Section 36A and Beyond
Under the , a Conservation Reserve carries specific implications for land management. Section 36A requires the to consult with local village communities and stakeholders to declare an area for the purpose of protecting landscapes, seascapes, flora, and fauna. Crucially, dictates the requirement for a Management Committee, which serves to manage and maintain the reserve.
For legal professionals and conservationists, this case underscores the utility—and the limitations—of the "Conservation Reserve" model in India. Unlike a formal National Park, which involves strict exclusionary zones, a Conservation Reserve recognizes that human activity exists but mandates that such activity must be compatible with the survival of the ecosystem. The petitioners’ strategy focuses on this precise legal mechanism to create a firewall against the rampant commercial development currently threatening the hills. By seeking an interim direction to stop ongoing construction, the petitioners are attempting to invoke the " ," a cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence that mandates intervention when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, regardless of the lack of full scientific certainty.
Judicial Strategy and Future Outlook
During the recent hearing, the Division Bench adopted a cautious approach typical of high-stakes public litigation. While the petitioners moved for an immediate interim direction to halt all building activities, the Court maintained that the State must first be allowed to file its response. This is a common procedural step ensuring that the are observed, particularly when a court is asked to issue sweeping orders that affect land-use and administrative permits.
The Government Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the , the Chief Conservator of Forests, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, the District Commissioner, and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. The matter is currently posted for , a date that will prove critical for the future of Mullayanagiri.
Impact on Legal Practice and Environmental Litigation
For the legal community, this case serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges inherent in administrative litigation. It highlights the gap that often exists between policy announcement and legal implementation. Attorneys involved in environmental law should monitor this case closely for two reasons. First, it addresses the enforceability of "draft proposals" that haven't matured into gazetted notifications. Can a court legally mandate the finalization of a proposal based on the doctrine of " " or ?
Second, the case demonstrates the persistent challenge of defining the boundaries of an . As urbanization pressures mount, the interpretation of environmental protections for peripheral areas—those not strictly classified as core sanctuaries or parks—remains a fertile, yet difficult, ground for litigation. The outcome of this case will set a precedent for how the interprets the State's duty to act on its own conservation proposals. If the Court grants the prayer for a stay on construction, it could signal a more robust judicial stance against the degradation of high-altitude ecosystems, encouraging litigators across the country to leverage the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act to challenge similar instances of ministerial apathy.
As the matter waits for the next hearing, the focus remains on whether the State of Karnataka will finalize the original, more expansive boundaries proposed in , or whether the current administration will attempt to sustain the reduced, 10,000-acre iteration of the project. Whatever the decision, the Mullayanagiri dispute is poised to be an essential case study in the resilience of India's environmental laws and the role of the judiciary in preserving the state's natural heritage against the demands of a growing tourism sector.
