Supreme Court Constitutes Committee To Examine Issue Of Safaris In Tiger Reserves, Allows Existing Tiger Safaris To Continue

The latest verdict was handed down by a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Sandeep Mehta. While pronouncing the judgment, Justice Gavai began with a quote from Indian epic Mahabharata, "The tiger perishes without the forest, and the forest perishes without its tigers. Therefore, the tigers should stand guard over the forest and the forests should protect all its tigers."

Analysing the language of the provisions in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, the court concluded that although it will not be permissible to establish a tiger safari in a core or critical tiger habitat area without obtaining the prior approval of the National Board, such an activity would be permissible in the buffer or peripheral area.

The bench, while prima facie finding no infirmity in the guidelines issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), i.e., the 2012 Guidelines and the 2016 Guidelines for establishing tiger safaris in the buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves, noted, "Even in buffer or peripheral areas, though a lesser degree of habitat protection than the core area is to be provided, however, the provisions are required to be made to ensure the integrity of the critical tiger habitat with adequate dispersal for tiger species."

It also noted -

"We are not experts in the field. We find that it would be appropriate if experts in the field come together and come out with a solution that would go a long way in the effective management of tiger reserves," Justice Gavai said, before reading out the directions issued in this verdict.

According to these directions, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change shall appoint a committee comprising a representative of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), a representative of the Wildlife Institute of India, a representative of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), and an officer of the MoEFCC not below the rank of joint secretary.

This committee can co-opt any other authority and employ services of experts in the field if found necessary. The said committee has been directed to first, recommend measures for restoration of damages in the local in-situ environment, second, assess the environmental damage caused in the Corbett Tiger Reserve and evaluate the cost for restoration, three, identify the persons or officials responsible for such damage, four, specify how funds collected from delinquent officials and persons can be utilised for the active restoration of ecological damage.

"Needless to say that the State shall recover the cost so quantified from the persons or delinquent officers found responsible for the same. The costs so recovered would be exclusively used for the purpose of restoration of the damage caused to the environment," the bench clarified.

Moreover, this committee has been asked to consider and recommend, among other things, the question of whether tiger safaris should be permitted in the buffer or fringe areas and what guidelines should be promulgated for establishing such safaris, if permitted. Its approach should be that of ecocentrism and not anthropocentrism, and it should apply the precautionary principle to minimise the environment damage. The court further asked the committee to take into other factors such as the proximity of the safari to the rescue centre, and where the animals are being sourced from. 

Notably, the bench clarified that only injured and orphaned tigers from within the tiger reserves may be exhibited in terms of the 2016 guidelines. "To that extent, the 2019 guidelines stand quashed," it added.

Other issues forwarded for the committee's consideration are the type of activities that should be permitted and prohibited in the buffer zone and fringe areas of tiger reserves, the number and type of resorts that should be permitted within the close proximity of the protected areas and the restrictions on such resorts, restrictions on noise levels, measures for the effective management and maintenance of tiger reserves, and steps required for implementing the committee's recommendations. 

In February 2023, the court by an interim order had temporarily put a stop to such construction activities within core areas of tiger reserves, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries. This development came in the wake of a court-constituted panel recommending that the guidelines related to setting up zoos and safaris within tiger reserves and wildlife sanctuaries be withdrawn or amended to discourage the use of wildlife habitats for non-site-specific tourism activities.

Background

The verdict follows a controversy that erupted last year over the construction activities in the Jim Corbett National Park, where alleged illegal buildings and waterbodies were being created. The issue was brought before the court through a batch of applications, highlighting the violation of environmental norms and the encroachment into core wildlife habitats. These interlocutory applications were filed in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case, an omnibus forest protection matter in which the top court issued the longest-standing continuing mandamus in the field of environmental litigation. In 2002, a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was also constituted for monitoring the implementation of the court's orders and bringing to its attention, incidents of non-compliance.

During the proceedings, amicus curiae K Parameshwar presented evidence of unauthorised constructions within the national park. The court was shown photographs depicting concrete and iron enclosures purportedly meant for a 'safari' experience. The bench raised questions about the necessity of creating such facilities within natural forest environments, particularly in areas designated for the protection of endangered species like tigers. The court was also informed that a significant number of trees, over 6,000, had been cut down in the national park under the guise of safari development.

In response to the submissions, the Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction on further construction activities within the core areas of tiger reserves, national parks, and wildlife sanctuaries.

Last month, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud passed an interim order in a batch of writ petitions challenging the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act 2023, categorically stating that the Supreme Court's prior approval would have to be sought before constructing any zoo or safari in forest areas other than protected areas.

This interim directive was issued in response to petitioners' concerns over zoos and safaris in forest areas other than protected areas being excluded from the definition of 'forests', pursuant to the 2023 amendment. In response to this, Justice Gavai expressed concerns about the possibility of conflicting orders, since a bench led by him had reserved its verdict on the very same issue of zoos within forests.

However, the interim order passed by the Chief Justice Chandrachud-led bench, which was released later, specifically clarifies that it will be in operation only till the judgment is pronounced by the coordinate bench.

In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

Click here to read the judgment