Kuno Cheetah Deaths Anticipated; 50% Of Translocated Animals Dying Not Alarming : Centre Tells Supreme Court

Responding to a query by the bench regarding the death of almost forty percent of the cheetahs, Additional Solicitor-General Aishwarya Bhati said:

“The highest authorities have taken cognisance. This is a prestigious project for our country. We are making our best efforts. In terms of my instructions, [the deaths] were anticipated. Up to fifty per cent deaths in first year on translocation is not a very alarming figure. Our status report contains all details. There are several considerations.”

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing an application moved by an expert committee constituted to ‘guide and direct’ the National Tiger Conservation Authority with respect to India’s ambitious cheetah reintroduction programme. The expert committee has urged the top court to direct the NTCA to keep it apprised of latest developments and accept their advice and submissions.

40% Cheetahs dying not good. Why can't they be shifted elsewhere? Court asks Centre

“How many total deaths have been recorded?” Justice Gavai asked during the brief hearing.

Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen, appearing for the expert committee, had mentioned the matter earlier so that it would be listed today. “Eight deaths,” he answered.

“Of how many?” Justice Gavai asked.

ASG Bhati told the bench that a total of 20 cheetahs were brought from the African continent and four were born in India.

“How many cubs were there? How many have survived?” Justice Pardiwala enquired.

“There were four cubs. Three have died. One survives,” Bhati told the bench. However, on behalf of the central government, the counsel vehemently argued that all necessary steps were being taken to ensure the survival of the felines. “This is a prestigious project, she said. “We are putting our best effort.”

After hearing the distressing statistics regarding the recent spate of deaths, the bench expressed its concerns, saying, “This may be a prestigious project. But forty percent of the cheetahs dying in less than one year does not [bode well], does it?”

“In terms of my instructions,” ASG Bhati said, “This was anticipated. Up to fifty percent deaths in first year on translocation is not a very alarming figure. Our status report contains all details. There are several considerations. Please permit us to submit the affidavit.”

“Instead of having all of them in one place, why don’t you consider moving them to different sites?” Justice Gavai suggested.

In response, the ASG submitted, “This aspect has also been examined at length by the experts. I will bring to your attention the steps taken in this respect and the steps proposed to be taken in the future. It is an unfortunate incident. The status report includes the steps that are being taken to address this. Several aspects have been examined.”

“What is the problem exactly? Prima facie it appears that our conditions don't suit them,” Justice Pardiwala remarked.

“There are a lot of problems,” Bhati replied, “Detailed analysis of each death is being carried out and our status report will have all that. Then this court may decide what further directions are required.”

Sen, however, disagreed with the law officer’s contention that all necessary steps were being taken by the government. “This is not adversarial...We are concerned that there are some immediate measures must be taken, but have not been taken by the government. Neither have we been consulted. I wanted to shed light on these...I wanted to bring them a report by South African consultants - experts in this field, and have them answer to these suggestions.”

“Bring these to her notice,” Justice Gavai instructed, before adjourning the hearing till Tuesday, August 1.

Background

In 2013, while examining whether it was necessary to reintroduce the endangered Asiatic lion in Kuno and ultimately giving the go-ahead to the central government’s reintroduction plan in Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund (India) v. Union of India, a bench headed by Justice KS Radhakrishnan had allowed an interlocutory application against the decision of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (which later became the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change or ‘MoEFCC’) to import Namibian cheetahs to India. Quashing the MoEF order sanctioning this, the bench observed:

“MoEF, in our view, has not conducted any detailed study before passing the order of introducing foreign cheetah to Kuno. Kuno is not a historical habitat for African cheetahs, no materials have been placed before us to establish that fact…We may indicate that our top priority is to protect Asiatic lions, an endangered species and to provide a second home…At this stage, the decision taken by MoEF for introduction of African cheetahs first to Kuno and then Asiatic lion, is arbitrary and illegal and a clear violation of the statutory requirements provided under the Wildlife Protection Act.”

Almost seven years later, the environment ministry was finally granted the permission to proceed with its ambitious plan, after it submitted that the cheetahs would be introduced “on an experimental basis in a careful chosen habitat and nurtured and watched to see whether it can adapt to the Indian conditions”. While allowing this application, a bench headed by then Chief Justice SA Bobde, by a January 2020 order, constituted an expert committee to supervise and survey the Centre’s plan to introduce African cheetahs in the territory of India. The court held:

“It is not desirable that this action of introducing the African cheetahs into India be left to the sole discretion of the NTCA but we consider it appropriate that NTCA be guided and directed by the Committee of Experts in the field who would carry out the survey for the best location for introducing the African cheetahs in India and take a careful decision about the viability of introducing this animal on a larger scale. The expert committee shall also supervise the entire process and NTCA shall be guided to act in co-ordination with the expert committee.”

This expert committee recently moved the Supreme Court, frustrated and disengaged at being allegedly omitted from the decision-making process on crucial matters relating to the central government’s Project Cheetah. Initially the top court signalled a strong disinclination to interfere with the centre’s plan to release these felines translocated from the African continent into the wild in India, lamenting that it had to increasingly fulfil the exacting role of a ‘micro-administrator’. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta also indicated that the Centre would be filing an application for recalling the earlier order envisioning the supervision of the court-appointed expert committee. “How can they insist that their advice must be sought, irrespective of whether it is needed?” the law officer had told the bench.

Again in May – by then, a total of three cheetahs had died – the Supreme Court expressed its concern over the government’s plan asked it to consider shifting some of the felines to alternative locations. “Kuno may not be sufficient to accommodate all of them,” the bench told the additional solicitor-general. In response, the Centre assured the court that the task force constituted for this purpose, along with experts in the field, were ‘on top of the whole situation’. “We have an action plan,” the law officer insisted. The top court adjourned the hearing after orally directing the expert committee to provide its suggestions to the government before the next death of hearing.

As of today, five more cheetahs have died, taking the death toll up to eight. This includes five adult cheetahs and three cubs. A total of 20 cheetahs were brought from South Africa and Namibia, and four cubs were born in India. Only one of the cubs born here survives.

Case Title

Centre for Environment Law WWF-I v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995