# CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2013] 6 S.C.R. 757
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-04-15
- **Case number:** Writ Petition (Civil} No. 337 of 1995
- **Bench:** K.S. Radhakrishnan, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/centre-for-environment-law-wwf-1-v-union-of-india-others-29316
- **Pages:** 53

## Headnote

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972:
Ex-situ conservation - Translocation of Asiatic Lion
(Panthera Leo Persica) - To Kuno wildlife Sanctuary in State
c
of Madhya Pradesh - From Gir forest in the State of Gujarat,
0
the single habitat of Asiatic Lion - For providing second
natural habitat for long term conservation of Asiatic Lion -
State of Gujarat not agreeing for the proposal of translocation
- Interlocutory application for direction to the State of Gujarat
to translocate the Lions as per the plan - Held: For long term
E
conservation of Asiatic Lion, an endangered specie, it is
necessary to provide it a second home -
Kuno, is the
historical habitat of Asiatic Lions, and all steps have been
taken for making Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary fit for re-introduction
of Asiatic Lion with the approval of National Board for Wildlife
· (NBWL) - Animals in the wild are the properties of the nation
F
- No State, can claim ownership or possession over them -
NBWL having been constituted by Central Government, its
views shall prevail over the views of State Board for wildlife,
Gujarat constituted by the State Government - Direction to
Ministry of Environment and Forest to take urgent steps for G
re-introduction of Asiatic Lion from Gir forest to Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary, in accordance with guidelines issued by IUCN and
with active participation of experts in the field - Bio-diversity
757
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 6 S.C.R.
A Act, 2002 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Articles 48A and 51A(g).
Decision of Ministry of Environment and Forests to import
Arican Cheetahs from Namibia to India - To be introduced
8 at Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary before reintroduction of Aisiatic
lions from Gir forest- Interlocutory application objecting to the
decision - Held: The decision is arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of the statutory requirements provided under the
wildlife Protection Act.
C
Environmental Law - Preservation and protection of
endangered species - Need for parliamentary legislation -
Direction to Government of India and Ministry of Environment
and Forests to take urgent steps for preservation of the
endctngered species identified by National Wildlife Action
D Plan 2002-2016 and to initiate recovery programmes -
Direction also to identify all endangered species of flora and
fauna, study their needs, their environs and habitats to
establish the current level of security and the nature of threats.
E
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.21 - Right to life -
Scope of - Conservation and protection of environment is an
inseparable part of right to life - Environmental Law.
F
Words and Phrases - 'Wild Life' - Meaning of, in the
context of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
The Wildlife Institute of India (Wll), an autonomous
institution under the Ministry of environment and Forests
(MoEF), Government of India, conducted research at the
Gir Forest in the State of Gujarat, through its biologists,
G for the better management of the Gir Forest enhancing
the prospects for the long term conservation of lions at
Gir, a single habitat of Asiatic lion. The data collected by
biologists highlighted the necessity of a second natural
habitat for its long term conservation. In a workshop held
H in October, 1993, three alternative sites were suggested
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 759
OF INDIA
for re-introduction of Asiatic lions. After survey of the
A
three sites, Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of
Madhya Pradesh was found to be the most suitable site
for re-introduction in establishing a free ranging
population of Asiatic lions, as Kuno was historical
distribution range of Asiatic lions.
B
The State of Madhya Pradesh undertook massive
rehabilitation package for the villagers settled in and near
Kuno, so as to push forward the scheme. The State
Government of Gujarat did not agree with the proposal
C
for translation of the lions from Gujarat to Kuno.
Since nothing transpired despite the fact that crores
of rupees were spent by

## Text

_Characters 0–39,900 of 101,574. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39900 for what follows._

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 757
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
I.A. No. 100
In
Writ Petition (Civil} No. 337 of 1995
B
APRIL 15, 2013
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972:
Ex-situ conservation - Translocation of Asiatic Lion
(Panthera Leo Persica) - To Kuno wildlife Sanctuary in State
c
of Madhya Pradesh - From Gir forest in the State of Gujarat,
0
the single habitat of Asiatic Lion - For providing second
natural habitat for long term conservation of Asiatic Lion -
State of Gujarat not agreeing for the proposal of translocation
- Interlocutory application for direction to the State of Gujarat
to translocate the Lions as per the plan - Held: For long term
E
conservation of Asiatic Lion, an endangered specie, it is
necessary to provide it a second home -
Kuno, is the
historical habitat of Asiatic Lions, and all steps have been
taken for making Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary fit for re-introduction
of Asiatic Lion with the approval of National Board for Wildlife
· (NBWL) - Animals in the wild are the properties of the nation
F
- No State, can claim ownership or possession over them -
NBWL having been constituted by Central Government, its
views shall prevail over the views of State Board for wildlife,
Gujarat constituted by the State Government - Direction to
Ministry of Environment and Forest to take urgent steps for G
re-introduction of Asiatic Lion from Gir forest to Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary, in accordance with guidelines issued by IUCN and
with active participation of experts in the field - Bio-diversity
757
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 6 S.C.R.
A Act, 2002 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Articles 48A and 51A(g).
Decision of Ministry of Environment and Forests to import
Arican Cheetahs from Namibia to India - To be introduced
8 at Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary before reintroduction of Aisiatic
lions from Gir forest- Interlocutory application objecting to the
decision - Held: The decision is arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of the statutory requirements provided under the
wildlife Protection Act.
C
Environmental Law - Preservation and protection of
endangered species - Need for parliamentary legislation -
Direction to Government of India and Ministry of Environment
and Forests to take urgent steps for preservation of the
endctngered species identified by National Wildlife Action
D Plan 2002-2016 and to initiate recovery programmes -
Direction also to identify all endangered species of flora and
fauna, study their needs, their environs and habitats to
establish the current level of security and the nature of threats.
E
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.21 - Right to life -
Scope of - Conservation and protection of environment is an
inseparable part of right to life - Environmental Law.
F
Words and Phrases - 'Wild Life' - Meaning of, in the
context of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
The Wildlife Institute of India (Wll), an autonomous
institution under the Ministry of environment and Forests
(MoEF), Government of India, conducted research at the
Gir Forest in the State of Gujarat, through its biologists,
G for the better management of the Gir Forest enhancing
the prospects for the long term conservation of lions at
Gir, a single habitat of Asiatic lion. The data collected by
biologists highlighted the necessity of a second natural
habitat for its long term conservation. In a workshop held
H in October, 1993, three alternative sites were suggested
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 759
OF INDIA
for re-introduction of Asiatic lions. After survey of the
A
three sites, Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of
Madhya Pradesh was found to be the most suitable site
for re-introduction in establishing a free ranging
population of Asiatic lions, as Kuno was historical
distribution range of Asiatic lions.
B
The State of Madhya Pradesh undertook massive
rehabilitation package for the villagers settled in and near
Kuno, so as to push forward the scheme. The State
Government of Gujarat did not agree with the proposal
C
for translation of the lions from Gujarat to Kuno.
Since nothing transpired despite the fact that crores
of rupees were spent by the Government for the re·
introduction protect, the present intervention application
(IA No.100) in Writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 337 of 1995) was
D
filed seeking a direction to the respondents to implement
the relocation programme. Another I. A.No. 3452 in
W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 was filed by Amicus Curiae
objecting to the decision of MoEF to introduce African
'Cheetah' to Ku no before translocation of the Asiatic lions
E
from Gir forest
Allowing the Interlocutory applications, the Court
HELD: I.A. No.100 in W.P. No.337 of 1995:
F
1.1. All efforts must be made to implement the spirit
and provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; the
provisions of which are salutary and are necessary to be
implemented to maintain ecological chain and balance.
The Stockholm Declaration, the Declaration of United
G
Nations, Conventions on Human Environment signed in
the year 1972, to which India is the signatory, have laid
down the foundation of sustainable development and
urged the nations to work together for the protection of
the environment. Conventions on Biological Diversity,
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A signed in the year 1962 at Rio Summit, recognized for the
first time in International Law that the conservation of
biological diversity is "a common concern of human
kind" and is an integral part of the development process.
B
[Para 29] [788-D-G]
Sansar Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC
604: 2010 (12) SCR 583 - relied on.
1.2. For achieving the objectives of various
conventions including Convention on Biological
C Diversity (CBD) and also for proper implementation of
IUCN, CITES etc., and the provisions of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, Bio-diversity Act, Forest Conservation
Act etc. in the light of Articles 48A and 51A(g), the
Gov~rnment of India has laid down various policies and
D action plans such as the National Forest Policy (NFP)
1988, National Environment Policy (NEP) 2006, National
Bio-diversity Action Plan (NBAP) 2008, National Action
Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) 2008 and the
Integrated development of wild life habitats and centrally
E sponsored scheme framed in the year 2009 and
integrated development of National Wild-life Action Plan
(NWAP) 2002-2016. The 'Integrated Development of Wile
Life Habitat' under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of
2009 and the NWAP (2002-2016) have to be read along
F with the provisions of the Wile Life (Conservation) Act.
[Para 32] [789-G-H; 790-A-C]
G
Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited,
T. N.
Godavarman Thirumutpad vs. Union of India and Ors. (2011)
7 sec 338: 2011 (7) SCR 954 - relied on.
1.3. Keeping in view the necessity for ensuring better
protection of wildlife outside the protected areas and
initiating recovery programmes for saving critically
endangered species and habitats, a comprehensive
H Centrally Sponsored Scheme titled 'Integrated
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 761
OF INDIA
Development of Wildlife Habitats' has been made
A
operational on 30.7.2009 which was in addition to the
erstwhile Centrally Sponsored Scheme - 'Assistance for
the Development of National Parks and Sanctuaries'. The
scheme incorporated additional components and
activities for implementing the provisions of the Wildlife
B
(Protection) Act, 1972, the National Wildlife Action Plan
(2002-2016), recommendations of the Tiger Task Force,
2005 and the National Forest Commission, 2006 and the
necessities felt from time to time for the conservation of
wildlife and biodiversity in the country. [Para 35] [792-G- c
H; 793-A-C]
1.4. The Centrally Sponsored Scheme, specifically
refers to the Asiatic lions as a critically endangered
species and highlighted the necessity for a recovery
programme to ensure the long term conservation of lions.
D
NWAP 2002-2016 and the Centrally Sponsored Scheme
2009 relating to integrated development of wildlife
habitats are schemes which have statutory status and
have to be implemented in their letter and spirit. [Para 37]
[793-F-H] ·
E .
Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited,
T. N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. (2011)
7 SCC 338: 2011 (7) SCR 954 - relied on.
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and
F
Ors. (2012) 3SCC 277: 2012 (3) SCR 460 - referred to.
1.5. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not
only the human rights but also casts an obligation on
human beings to protect and preserve a specie becoming
extinct, conservation and protection of environment is an
G
inseparable part of right to life. The State, as a custodian
of the natural resources, has a duty to maintain them not
merely for the benefit of the public, but for the best
interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and so on. The doctrine
of 'public trust' has to be addressed in that perspective.
H :
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A [Para 41] [795-D-E, E-F]
M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388:
1996 (10)
Suppl. SCR 12 - relied on.
1.6. The human beings have a duty to prevent the
B species from going extinct and have to advocate for an
effective species protection regimes. NWAP 2002-2016
and the Centrally Sponsored Scheme 2009 indicate that
there are many animal species which are close enough
to extinction and some of the other species have already
c disappeared from this earth. No species can survive on
the brink of extinction indefinitely and that the continued
existence of any specie depends upon various factors
like human-animal conflict, epidemics, forest fire and
other natural calamities etc. [Para 48] [795-H; 796-A-B]
D
1.7. The Wildlife Biologists of Wildlife Institute of India
(Wll), an autonomous body under the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF), after conducting a
research on Gir Forests, noticed the necessity for long
term conservation of Asiatic lion in Gir and also
E highlighted the necessity of a second natural habitat for
its long term conservation. Population and Habitat
Analysis Workshop held at Baroda in October, 1993 also
highlighted that fact. National Board for Wildlife (NBWL),
has taken a consistent view in all its meetings about the
F necessity of a second habitat for Asiatic Lion, an
endangered species. Asiatic Lion, has been restricted to
only one single habitat, i.e. the Gir National Forest and its
surrounding areas and an outbreak of possible epidemic
or natural calamity might wipe off the entire species. A
G smaller population with limited genetic strength are more
vulnerable to diseases and other catastrophes in
comparison to large and widespread population. Threat,
therefore, is real and has proved by the outbreak of
canine distemper in the lions of Serengeti NP, Tanzania
H in 1994. It was felt that if an epidemic of this scale were
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 763
OF INDIA
to affect the lions in Gir, it would be very difficult to save
A
them from extinction, given the much smaller area of the
Gir forests and the smaller lion population. The possibility
of the decease spreading to the pockets of habitat such
as Girnar, Mityala, Rajula, Kodinar and the surrounding
areas, cannot be ruled out. [Para 43] [796-8-G]
B
1.8. There is uniformity in the vie.ws expressed by the
Bio-Scientists of Wll, NBWL, MoEF and other experts that
to have a second home for the endangered species like
Asiatic Lion is of vital importance. A detailed study has
C
been conducted to find out the most suitable habitat for
its re-introduction and Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya
Pradaesh, has been found to be the most ideal habitat.
[Para 44] [796-H; 797-A-B]
1.9. No State, organisation or person can claim
D
ownership or possession over wild animals in the forest.
Wild Animal is defined under the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972 under Section 2(36) to mean any animal specified in
schedules I to IV and found wild in nature. 'Wild Life' has
been defined under Section 2(37) to include any animal,
E..
bees, butterflies, crustacean, fish and moths, and or land
vegetation which forms part of any habitat. Section 9
prohibits hunting of wild animals, specified in Schedule I,
II, Ill and IV except as provided under Section 11 i!tnd
Section 12. Section 40 of the Act obliges a person to make
F
a declaration and Section 41 enables the Chief Wild Life
Warden to make an enquiry and preparation of inventories
and Section 42 deals with the issue of certificates and
confers, no ownership of the wild animals to a particular
State or others. Animals in the wild are properties of the
G
nation for which no state can claim ownership and the
State's duty is to protect the wild life and conserve it, for
ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the
country. [Para 45] [797-C-F]
1.10. Several migratory birds, mammals, and animals
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A in wild, cross national and international borders created
by man and every nation have a duty and obligation to
ensure their protection. No nation or organisation can
claim ownership or possession over them, the
Convention on the conservation of migratory species of
B wild animals held at Bonn, 1979, supports this principle
and the convention recognises that wild animals in their
innumerable forms are irreplaceable part of the earth;
natural system and must be conserved for the good of
the mankind. It has recognised that the States ara and
c must be the protectors of the migratory species of wild
animals that live within or pass through their national
jurisdictional boundaries. Convention highlights that
conservation and effective management of migratory
species of wild animals require the concerted action of
0 all States within the national jurisdictional boundaries of
which such species spend any part of their life cycle.
India is also a signatory to that convention. [Para 46] [797·
G-1'1; 798-A·B]
1.11. State Board for Wildlife, Gujarat (SBWL,
E Gujarat), which has been constituted by the State
Government under Section 6 of the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972, did not agree with the proposal for
translocation of lion fro.m Gujarat to Kuno, a stand
endorsed by the State of Gujarat. The views of NBWL
F constituted by the Central Government in exercise of its
powers conferred under Section 5A of the Wildlife
Protection Act, have to prevail over the views expressed
by SBWL. The duties conferred on the National Board
under Section 5C of the Act and on the State Board under
G Section 8 of the Act are entirely different. Statutorily, it is
the duty of NBWL to promote conservation and
development of wildlife with a view to ensuring ecological
and environmental security in the country. Legislation in
its wisdom has conferred a duty on NBWL to provide
H conservation and development of wild life and forests.
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT Ll\W, WWF-1 v. UNION 765
OF INOIA
NBWL is, therefore, the top most scientific body A
established to frame policies and advise the Central and
State Governments on the ways and means of promoting
wild life conservation and to review the progress in the
field of_ wild life conservation in the country and
suggesting measures for improvement thereto. The
B
Central and the State Governments cannot brush aside
its opinion without any cogent or acceptable reasons. The
decisions taken by NBWL that Asiatic Lion should have
a second home to save it from extinction, due to
catastrophes like epidemic, large forest fire etc; which c
could result in extinction, is justified. (Paras 28, 48 and
50] [788-B-~; 800-A-B; 798-G; 799-D-H]
1.12. Reintroduction of an animal or plant into the
habitat from where it has become extinct is also known
as ex-situ conservation. India has successfully achieved
D
certain re-introduction programmes, for example, the
Rhino from Kaziranga, re-introduction of Gangetic gharial
in the rivers of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan etc. Reintroduction of an organism is the intentional movement
of an organism into a part of its native range from which
E
it has disappeared or become extirpated in historic times
as a result of human activities or natural catastrophe.
Kuno was proved to be a historical habitat of Asiatic
Lions. [Paras 51 and 52) (800-D-G]
1.13. After survey of the potential status for reintroduction of Asiatic Lion, a final report was submitted
F
by Wll, which was published on 31.1.1995, whereby Kuno
Wildlife Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh) emerged as the
most suitable habitat for re-introduction of the Asiatic lion.
G
The Council of Ministers approved the project on
28.2.1996. Between 1996 and 2001, 24 villages with about
1547 families had been translocated from the sanctuary
by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department. Government
of Madhya Pradesh had also demarcated 1280 sq. kms.
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Kuno Wildlife Division, encompassing the Sironi, Agra
and Morawan forest ranges around the sanctuary.
Government of India vide its order dated 21.1.1997
ordered diversion of 3720.9 hectares of forest land,
including 18 villages were protected under Section 2 of
B the Forest Conservation Act. A 20-years Project
envisaged by the Government of India was also
approved by NBWL in its meeting held on 10.3.2004. The
Government of Madhya Pradesh took up a massive relocation of villages and giving them alternative sites.
c Government of India has spent a sum of Rs.15 crores for
the said purpose. Thus all possible steps have been
taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh, MoEF and the
Union of India making Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary fit for reintroduction of Asiatic lion, with the approval of NBWL.
0 [Paras 52 and 53) [800-G-H; 801-A-E]
1.14. Re-introduction of Asiatic lion should be in
accordance with the guidelines issued by IUCN and with
the active participation of experts in the field of reintroduction of endangered species. MoEF is therefore
E directed to take urgent steps for re-introduction of Asiatic
Lion from Gir forests to Kuno. MoEF has to constitute an
Expert Committee consisting of senior officials of MoEF,
Chief Wildlife Wardens of the States of Madhya Pradesh
and Gujarat. Technical experts should also be the
F members of the Committee. Any other expert can also be
co-opted as the members of the Committee. The number
of lions to be re-introduced would depend upon the
density of prey base and other related factors, which the
Committee will assess. [Para 61) [808-C-F]
G I.A. No. 3452 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995:
2. The decision taken by MoEF for introduction of
African Cheetahs before introduction of Asiatic Lion to
Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, is arbitrary, illegal and in clear
H violation of the statutory requirements provided under the
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 767
OF INDIA
Wildlife Protection Act. MoEF has not conducted any
A
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 the Court to establish that fact. A detailed scientific
study has to be done before introducing a foreign
B
species to India, which has not been done in the instant
case. NBWL, which is Statutory Board established for the
purpose under the Wildlife Protection Act was also not
consulted. The order of MoEF to introduce African
Cheetahs into Kuno cannot stand in the eye of law and
C
the same is quashed. [Paras 59 and 60] [807-E-H; 808-A]
3. There is necessity of an exclusive parliamentary
legislation for the preservation and protection of
endangered species so as to carry out the recovery
programmes before many of the species become extinct.
NWAP (2002-2016) has already identified species like the
Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Dugong; the
Manipur Brow Antlered Deer, over and above Asiatic
Lion and Wild Buffalo as endangered species and hence,
the Government of India and the MoEF are directed to
take urgent steps for the preservation of those
endangered species as well as to initiate recovery
programmes. The Government of India and the MoEF are
also directed to identify all endangered species of flora
and fauna, study their needs and survey their environs
and habitats to establish the current level of security and
the nature of threats. They should also conduct periodic
reviews of flora and fauna species status, and correlate
D
E
F
the same with the IUCN Red Data List every three years.
Courts and environmentalists should pay more attention
for implementing the recovery programmes and the same
G
be carried out with imagination and commitment. [Para
63] [808-H; 809-A-E]
Case Law Reference:
2010 (12) SCR 583 ·
relied on
Para 29
H
A
B
c
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R
2011 (7) SCR 954
2012 (3) SCR 460
relied on
referred to
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12 relied on
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 100
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
IA No. 3452 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995.
Paras 32
Para 37
Para 41
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, P.S. Narasimha, (A.G.) T.S. Deobia,
D Raj Panjwani, Shyam Divan, Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, Kiran
Bhardwaj, B.K. Prasad, Asha G. Nair, Md. Khithey, D.S. Mahra,
Vijay Panjwani, Rahul Choudary, Aditya Shamlal, Anitha
Shenoy, Hemantika Wahi, Nirman Sharma, Jesal, Gaurav
Agrawal, K. Parameshwar, Haris Beeran, P.K. Manohar, Rajeev
E K. Dubey, Shiv Prakash Pandey, Kamlendra Mishra, Vibha
Dutta Makhija for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Application for Intervention
F is allowed.
1. We have been called upon to decide the necessity of a
second home for Asiatic Lion (Panthera Jeo persica), an
endangered species, for its long term survival and to protect
G the species from extinction as issue rooted on eco-centrism,
which supports the protection of all wildlife forms, not just those
which are of instrumental value to humans but those which have
intrinsic worth.
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v_ UNION 769
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
FACTS:
A
2. The Wildlife Institute of India (for short 'Wll'), an
autonomous institution under the Ministry of Environment and
Forests (for short 'MoEF'), Government of India, through its
wildlife Biologists had done considerable research at the Gir
B
Forest in the State of Gujarat since 1986. All those studies
were geared to provide data which would help for the better
management of the Gir forest and enhance the prospects for
the long term conservation of lions at Gir, a single habitat of
Asiatic lion in the world. The data collected by the Wildlife
C
Biologists highlighted the necessity of a second natural habitat
for its long term conservation. Few of the scientists had
identified the Asiatic lions as a prime candidate for a re- -
introduction project to ensure its long term survival. In October
1993, a Population and Habitat Analysis Workshop was held
at Baroda, Gujarat. Various issues came for consideration in
D
that meeting and the necessity of a second home for Asiatic
lions was one of the issues deliberated upon in that meeting.
Three alternative sites for re-introduction of Asiatic lions were
suggested for an intensive survey, the details of which are given
below:
E
1.
Darrah-Jawaharsagar
Wildlife
Sanctuary
(Rajasthan)
2.
Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary (Rajasthan)
3.
Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh)
3. The Research Advisory Committee of Wll recognized
F
the need for a prior survey to assess the potential of those sites.
Accordingly, a field survey was conducted. Surveys of the three
G
sites were made during winter as well as summer, to assess
water availability during the summer and also to ascertain the
changes in human impact on the habitat during the seasons.
The surveyors concentrated on ascertaining the extent of forest
area in and adjoining the chosen protected areas with the aim
H
770
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A of establishing the contiguity of the forested habitat. Attempts
were also made to establish the relative abundance of wild
ungulate prey in the three sites based on direct sightings as
well as on indirect evidence. An assessment of the impact on
the people and their livestock on habitat quality in all three sites
B was also made. Of the three sites surveyed, Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary (for short 'Kuno') was found to be the most suitable
site for re-introduction in establishing a free ranging population
of Asiatic lions. A draft report to that effect was prepared by
eminent Scientists like Ravi Chellam, Justus Joshwa, Christy
c A. Williams and A. J. T. Johnsingh on behalf of Wll. The report
revealed that the Kuno was a historical distribution range of
Asiatic lions. Report also highlighted the necessity of a long
term commitment of resources, personnel, the necessity of a
comprehensive rehabilitation package, adequate staff and
0 facilities. Committee did not consider the presence of tigers
in Ku.no to be a major limiting factor, especially since the tigers
occur in such low numbers and density. Since lions live in stable
social units, report highlighted that it is important to take lions
for the translocation also from a single pride. Further, it was also
E pointed out that genetic consideration would not be a major
factor, provided fresh male lions are moved from Gir to Kuno
every three to five years and the resident males in Kuno
selectively captured for Zoos.
4. State of Madhya Pradesh then undertook a massive
F rehabilitation package for the villagers settled in and near Kuno
so as to push forward the scheme of relocation of Asiatic lions
in Kuno. It was noticed that about 1545 families of 24 revenue
villages were living inside Kuno and they had to be rehabilitated
outside the sanctuary. Since suitable and sufficient revenue
G land was not available in adjoining areas, it was decided to
relocate those villages on degraded protected forests. Since
proposed site of resettlement fell in various blocks of protected
forest, the use as a rehabilitation purpose involved a legal
obligation to obtain prior sanction from MoEF under Section 2
H of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 771
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
5. The Secretary (Forests), Government of Madhya
A
Pradesh, therefore, sent a letter dated 24. 7 .1996 to MoEF
seeking final approval of the Central Government in accordance
with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. MoEF, after
examining the request of the State of Madhya Pradesh,
conveyed its approval under Section 2 of the Forest
B
(Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 3720.9 hectare of
forest land for rehabilitation of 18 villages located inside the
Kuno, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Out of 3720.9
hectare of the 13-forest compartments, 3395.9 hectare forest
area of 12 compartments was finally approved by the c
Government of India for de-notification. Compartment No. P442 of Um_arikaia forest block was left .out from the original
proposal by Government of India letter dated 1.2.2000 and
hence, the released area in first phase had been de-notified
after due permission from the Government of India. Forest area
0
of 1263.9 hectare released in the second phase could not be
de-notified for want of permission from the Government of India.
The Government of India constituted a Monitoring Committee
for the effective implementation of the Asiatic Lion
Reintroduction Project at Kuno which met on 10.3.2004. The
E
Survey report of Wll was discussed in the meeting and it was
noticed that Kuno Paipur Sanctuary of M.P. was identified as
the project site/and a 20 year project was conceived in three
phases as below:
a.
Phase I (1995-2000 A.O.) Village relocation and
F
habitat development.
b.
Phase II (2000-2005) Fencing at the side,
translocation, research and monitoring.
c.
Phase Ill (2005-2015) Eco-development.
G
It was pointed out in the meeting that, currently, the project
was in Phase II and 18 villages had been rehabilitated from
Kuno. Further, in the meeting, the Chief Wildlife Warden of
<:3ujarat had, however, opined that there was no commitment
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A on the part of the State of Gujarat for providing lions and the
State Government had not agreed for the same Based on the
discussion, the Chairman summed up the consensus which
emerged out of the deliberations as follows:
B
c
D
E
1. A letter from MOS, MoEF should be sent to the Chief
Minister of Gujarat, highlighting the project justification with
a request to provide lions for translocation to Kuno Palpur
Sanctuary.
2. State of Gujarat should be provided with a set of project
documents.
3. The Chief Wildlife Warden, MP should prepare a road
map with a final detail for translocation of lions from Gir to
"-uno.
4. An assessment of prey base in Kuno should be done
byWll.
5. No further expenditure should be incurred with a focus
on lion; however, funding support for habitat improvement/
welfare initiatives for other wild animals can continue.
6. The scheme for rehabilitation of villagers was prepared
by the centrally sponsored "Beneficiary-oriented Scheme for
Tribal Developmenr. It was stated in the scheme that a total of
F more than Rs.1545 lacs would be required for the satisfactory
re-location of 1545 families of 24 villages out of the limit of
Kuno. Out of 1545 lacs, 1061 lacs had been spent on relocation
process. Balance 484 lacs were required to be released for
the remaining rehabilitation works. The Chief Wildlife Warden,
G M.P. had certified the said expenditure.
7. Wll, in the meantime, had made a detailed assessment
of prey population for lion re-location in Kuno. It was noticed
that since re-location of villages from Kuno was complete,
Government of M.P. was keen to assess the prey base in the
H sanctuary so as to plan obtaining lions from Gujarat for re-
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 773
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN. J.]
introduction as early as possible. For the said purpose, the task
A
of evaluating for wild prey base was entrusted to Wll.
Consequently, the faculty from Wll, with the help of 34 forest
staff, had undertaken the study of ungulates in Kuno under the
guidance of Dr. Raghu Chundawat and carried out the prey
assessment exercise from 2.1.2005 to 8.1.2005 and 8.2.2005
B
to 13.2.2005. A report was filed in June 2006 (July 2006). The
Minister of MoEF sent a letter dated 20.7.2006 to the Chief
Minister of Gujarat for translocation of two numbers of lions to
Kuno. The Chief Minister of Gujarat vide his letter dated
30.4.2006 replied stating that the matter had been placed c
before the concerned department for further views. But nothing
had been transpired in spite of the fact that crores and crores
of rupees were spent by the Government of India for re-location
of villages, de-notifying the reserve forest and so on which led
to the filing of this public interest litigation seeking a direction
0
to the respondents to implement the re-location programme as
recommended. by Wll, and approved by the Government of
India.
8. The Minister for Tribal Welfare, Forests and
Environment, Government of Gujarat vide his D.O. letter dated
E
18.8.2007 had indicated that it was not possible for the State
Government to agree to the proposal for creation of a second
home at Kuno in Madhya Pradesh for Asiatic Lions. When the
matter came up for consideration before this Court on
30.11.2007 and this Court passed the following order:
F
"There was a proposal for translocation of some of
the Asiatic Lions found in the Gir National Park to a forest
in Madhya Pradesh. The State of Gujarat has raised
certain objections. The State of Madhya Pradesh wants to
G
file its response ...... The proposal is directed to be
submitted to the National Board for Wildlife. NBWL may
consider the objections of State of Gujarat and response
of Madhya Pradesh and submit is recommendation in this
court in four months."
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
9. NBWL then convened a meeting on 18.2.2008 under
the Chainnanship of Hon'ble Minister of State for Forests and
Wildlife. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat infonned the Board
about the various steps taken by the State Government for
providing protection to Lions and their habitat and submitted
B as follows:
(a)
That Kuno Palpur has a population of 6 to 8 tigers
and co-existence of large cats of almost equal size
was unlikely.
C
(b)
That Lions world over are known to prefer
grasslands in sub-topical to near sub-tropical
climates with nonnal temperature during hot period
below 42 degree C. (approx) while Kuno is known
to have hot climate during summer with temperature
D
exceeding 45 degree C. for a number of days.
E
F
G
H
(c)
The prey base at Kuno is also not adequate enough
for the lions.
(d)
Lions are increasing in number and geographical
distribution in vicinity of Gir in Amreli & Bhavnagar
districts. This is a natural increase in home range
of lions, which is well received by local population.
Besides, Gir National Park and Gir-Paniya-Mithiyal
Sanctuary and Devalia Interpretation Park, lions
have made home in Gimar, grasslands of
Savarkundla, Palitana and Mahuva hills and in the
coastal region of Jafrabad and Rajula in Amreli
districts, Mahuva and Palitana talukas of Bhavnagar
district.
(e)
The Barda Sanctuary area is being effectively
prepared as home for lion with vegetation having
improved while spotted deer are introduced.
(f)
The natural expansion of home range being the
effective way of establishing natural Meta
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 775
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
population that infrequently interact among
A
populations located at different places in Gir
region. Thus effectively isolated populations which
may still received genetic inputs from the base
populations are establishing, providing efficient
method of conservation.
B
(g)
During the year 2007-2008, Government of Gujarat
has launched a special programme for
conservation of lion with the Hon'ble Chief Minister
of Gujarat announcing a five year action plan
package of Rs.40 crore for lion conservation which
C
includes increase in protection force, habitat
management, raising awareness to enlist people's
participation etc.
10. The Chairman, NBWL then sought the opinion of the
D
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the points raised by the
Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat.
11. The Additional PCCF (WL), Government of Madhya
Pradesh informed that the Kuno was waiting for the release of
E
lions from Gujarat and that the Madhya Pradesh Government
had taken all the necessary measures to make Kuno the ideal
second home for the lions. Further, it was pointed out that the
State had already relocated 24 villages from the sanctuary for
the said purpose. Further, it was pointed out that Kuno was
F
suggested as a second home for lions after due scientific
studies conducted by Wll and the Kuno had posed no threat to
the conservation of lions. Further, it was also pointed out that
the prey base was in plenty in Kuno and he requested that the
lions be translocated to Kuno at the earliest.
G
12. Dr. Asad Rehmani, Director, Bombay Natural History
Society and member of the Standing Committee pointed out
that sporadic presence of tiger in Kuno was in no case
detrimental to re-introduction of lions. Dr. Divyabhanusinh
Chavda, member of the Standing Committee had also
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A emphasized the fact that there was a need to create a second
home for lions. Dr. Chavda cited an example of the death of
large number of lions in the Serengeti National Park at Tanzania
and other areas in Africa due to epidemics. Dr. Chavda
cautioned, it could happen at Gir as well. Rest of the members
B of the Standing Committee also supported the decision for
translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno. The Standing
Committee of NBWL recorded that it was unanimously
recommended for translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno.
13. The State of Gujarat filed a detailed affidavit before
C this Court on 4.4.2009 stating that the State had objected to
the translocation of lions and that the decision of the Standing
Committee was not unanimous. Further, it was also pointed out
that there was no sufficient prey base at Kuno so as to receive
lions.
D
14. This Court, after perusing the affidavit filed by the
States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh as well as MoEF, again
passed an order dated 22.4.2009 directing NBWL to have a
fresh look on the subject and file a report. It was also ordered
E that NBWL should hear both the States, if necessary before
filing the report. The additional affidavit filed by the State of
Gujarat was also placed for consideration before NBWL in its
meeting held on 17.7.2009. In that meeting, the Chief Wildlife
Warden and the Principal Secretary {Forests) were present on
F behalf of the State of Gujarat. After detailed discussion, the
Standing Committee of NBWL had unanimously decided to
have an in-house technical discussion on the subject before
taking a final view. The technical discussion was, therefore, held
during the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee which was
G convened on 16.9.2009. In that meeting, the representatives of
the Government of Madhya Pradesh {Additional Chief
Secretary and Chief Wildlife Warden), Government of Gujarat
{Principal Secretary- Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden) along
with non-official members of the Standing Committee of
National Board of Wildlife were also present during the
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 777
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
discussions. The following decisions were taken in the technical
A
discussion held on 16.9.2009:
"TECHNICAL
DISCUSSION
ON
THE
ISSUE
TRANSLOCATION OF ASIATIC LION FROM GIR TO
KUNO PALPUR
It was followed by discussion on Agenda Item Nc.4
B
Member Secretary apprised the Cor.1rnittee that
during the last meeting it was decid<:!d to have detailed
technical discussion on the issue of translocation of lions
C
to Madhya Pradesh (M.P.} in Kuno Palpur Sanctuary.
Chairman observed that the issue is not mere
translocation of lions from Gujarat to M.P. but also the long
term viability of survival of the transiocated lions. He also
pointed out that in past lions have been translocated in
M.P. as well as in U.P. unsuccessfully. Further, at present
tiger conservation in M.P. also requires focused efforts on
D
the part of the State Government. Under these
circumstances any decision for translocation of lions needs
to be taken very carefully after judicious consultations.
Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda informed that in the
previous instances of lion's translocation in both the cases,
lions were hunted because they became cattle lifters and
caused acute lion-man conflict in the introduced areas as
E
the introduced areas were small and devoid of adequate
F
prey based. However, this is not the present case. At
present hunting is legally banned and proposed
introduction area is not only having enough prey base but
also devoid of human population. CWLW, M.P. also
informed that Kuno Palpur Sanctuary could accommodate
G
even 60 lions as there was about 900 sq. Km of buffer area
around the Sanctuary. There was enough prey base as per
the survey of the State Forest Department. The additional
Chief Secretary, Govt of M.P. submitted that the issue was
not between the two States but was survival of lions and it
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 6 S.C.R.
needs to be provided an alternative home outside 8the
Gujarat State. More than Rs.34.00 crores have already
been spent on the project. In case wild lions are not
available, zoo bred lions could be introduced in the
identified area following soft release as has been
proposed in past. Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh was of the opinion
that introduction of zoo bred or captive bred lions in the
wild were not correct approach. The only solution was to
introduce wild population of lions. Dr.