Protecting the 'Leopard Country': Rajasthan High Court Curbs Unregulated Safari Activities

In a significant move to safeguard one of India’s most unique ecological landscapes, the Rajasthan High Court has intervened in the growing conflict between rising tourism and wildlife preservation in the Jawai region of Pali. The Division Bench, led by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Shah, issued interim directions aimed at mitigating the ecological stress caused by unregulated safari operations.

The Landscape of Coexistence

The Jawai region is globally celebrated not just for its granite hills and leopard population, but for the rare, peaceful coexistence between its local Rabari community and the predators living in the same proximity. Unlike many areas where human-wildlife conflict is rampant, this region has thrived on a cultural ethos of tolerance. However, this delicate balance has been threatened by the influx of commercial tourism, which the Court noted is currently operating in a regulatory vacuum, lacking the formal protection status of a wildlife sanctuary or national park.

The Legal Challenge

The Public Interest Litigation, filed by Apoorva Agrawat, highlighted a grim reality: the encroachment of unregulated safari vehicles into the nocturnal lives of leopards. The petitioner’s counsel demonstrated that tourism activities had become invasive, utilizing spotlights, high-intensity searchlights, and even drones to locate and track animals during dusk and night hours. These activities, the petitioner argued, pose not only a severe stressor to the wildlife but also a safety hazard to the tourists themselves.

Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Bench anchored its reasoning in Article 48A of the Constitution of India , which mandates that the State protect and improve the environment and safeguard the nation's forests and wildlife. Justice Bhati and Justice Shah observed that this Directive Principle is not merely advisory but forms the core of environmental governance, intrinsically linked to the Right to Life under Article 21.

The Court emphasized that the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 , was designed precisely to ensure the country’s "ecological and environmental security," and that the lack of formal notification under the Act left the region's biodiversity vulnerable to commercial exploitation.

Key Observations

The High Court noted the gravity of the habitat disturbance during its proceedings:

• "The phrase ‘shall endeavour’ signifies a continuous and proactive duty, requiring the State to adopt legislative, administrative, and regulatory measures to ensure environmental protection and conservation of wildlife."
• "What distinguishes Jawai from conventional wildlife habitats is not merely the presence of a thriving leopard population, but the extraordinary social ecology that surrounds it."
• "This regulatory vacuum renders its biodiversity vulnerable and undermines long-term conservation efforts."
• "Harassment of wildlife is of such extent that night Safaris are being conducted, wherein spotlights, torch lights and search lights are directed at the animals and their caves/dens."

The Mandate: Immediate Regulatory Constraints

Pending a formal response from the State and Central government authorities, the Court has passed a stringent interim order effective immediately:

1. Safari Timings : All safari activities for spotting wildlife are restricted strictly to the window of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
2. Anti-Harassment Measures : The use of torchlights, searchlights, spotlights, drones, or any similar devices to track animals is strictly prohibited.
3. Accountability : The State, Forest Department, and District Collector are directed to ensure that any instance of misconduct, disturbance, or harassment by hospitality personnel or vehicle operators is reported and penalized under the law immediately.

The matter is set for further hearing on 20.04.2026 , where the Court is expected to deliberate on long-term protective measures for the Jawai landscape. For now, the "Leopard Country" finds a temporary respite, as the judiciary asserts that nature’s welfare must take precedence over commercial tourism interests.