# In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 178
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-03-06
- **Case number:** I.A. No.20650 Of 2023
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/in-re-t-n-godavarman-thirumulpad-v-union-of-india-ors-37577
- **Pages:** 107

## Headnote

The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same
footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a 'Tiger Safari' at Pakhrau in
Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; (iii) Illegal construction in Corbett
Tiger reserve and illegal felling of trees for the said purpose; (iv)
'Public Trust' Doctrine and (v) Principle of Ecological Restitution.
Headnotes
Wildlife Protection - 'Tiger Reserve' - Management and
protection of - Whether 'zoo' as defined u/s.2(39) and dealt
with under Chapter IVA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
and 'Tiger Safaris' as conceptualized by the National Tiger
Conservation Authority (NTCA) would stand on a same footing
- 'Tiger Safari', if permissible in buffer / fringe areas of Tiger
reserve - Establishment of 'Tiger Safari' at Pakhrau in Corbett
Tiger Reserve - Legality of - NTCA guidelines for Normative
Standards for Tourism Activities and for Project Tiger for
tiger conservation in the buffer and core areas of the tiger
reserves, 2012 - NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in
Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2016 - NTCA
Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in Buffer and Fringe Areas
of the Tiger Reserves, 2019 - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
- National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines for
preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP), 2007 - National
Wildlife Action Plan, 2017-2031 - National Forest Policy, 1988.
Held: 1.1. The definition of 'zoo' as defined under s.2(39) of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act) itself would show that
188
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
it is meant to be an establishment, whether stationary or mobile,
where captive animals are kept for exhibiting to the public or ex-situ
conservation and include a circus and off-exhibit facilities such as
rescue centres and conservation breeding centres - However, it
does not include the establishment of a licensed dealer in captive
animals - Though a 'zoo' as contemplated under Chapter IVA of
the WLP Act also deals with conservation, it emphasizes on exsitu conservation - Insofar as area covered under a sanctuary is
concerned, a safari cannot be constructed within the said area
unless there is a prior approval of the National Board of Wildlife
- 'Tiger Safaris' conceptualized by the NTCA are not for the parks
which are working either as zoos or as an extension to zoos.
[Paras 79, 80, 83]
1.2. Prima facie, there is no infirmity in the guidelines issued by
the NTCA, i.e., the 2012 Guidelines and the 2016 Guidelines
for establishing the 'Tiger Safaris' in the buffer and fringe areas
of the 'Tiger Reserve' - The said Guidelines emphasizes on the
rehabilitation of injured tigers (after suitable treatment), conflict
tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for rewilding and
release into the wild - However, the 2019 Guidelines, departing from
the aforesaid purpose, provide for sourcing of animals from zoos
in the Tiger Safaris - This would be totally contrary to the purpose
of the Tiger Conservation - 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 -
However, such a 'safari' can be established only for the purposes
specified in clause 9 of the 2016 Guidelines and not as per the
2019 Guidelines. [Paras 100, 101, 103]
1.3 On facts, the concerned authorities, who have expertise in the
matter, have approved the said site at Pakhrau - In the peculiar
facts, this Court is inclined to approve the establishment of the
'Tiger Safari' at Pakhrau. [Paras 113 and 114]
1.4. Presence of a Tiger in the forest is an indicator of the wellbeing of the ecosystem - Unless steps are taken for the protection
of the Tigers, the ecosystem revolving around Tigers cannot be
protected - The events like illegal constructions and illicit felling of
trees on a rampant scale like the one that happened in the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,946 of 222,182. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39946 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 187 : 2024 INSC 178
In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v.
Union of India & Ors.
In Re : Gaurav Kumar Bansal
I.A. No.20650 of 2023
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 Of 1995
06 March 2024
[B.R. Gavai,* Prashant Kumar Mishra and
Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same
footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a 'Tiger Safari' at Pakhrau in
Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; (iii) Illegal construction in Corbett
Tiger reserve and illegal felling of trees for the said purpose; (iv)
'Public Trust' Doctrine and (v) Principle of Ecological Restitution.
Headnotes
Wildlife Protection - 'Tiger Reserve' - Management and
protection of - Whether 'zoo' as defined u/s.2(39) and dealt
with under Chapter IVA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
and 'Tiger Safaris' as conceptualized by the National Tiger
Conservation Authority (NTCA) would stand on a same footing
- 'Tiger Safari', if permissible in buffer / fringe areas of Tiger
reserve - Establishment of 'Tiger Safari' at Pakhrau in Corbett
Tiger Reserve - Legality of - NTCA guidelines for Normative
Standards for Tourism Activities and for Project Tiger for
tiger conservation in the buffer and core areas of the tiger
reserves, 2012 - NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in
Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2016 - NTCA
Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in Buffer and Fringe Areas
of the Tiger Reserves, 2019 - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
- National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines for
preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP), 2007 - National
Wildlife Action Plan, 2017-2031 - National Forest Policy, 1988.
Held: 1.1. The definition of 'zoo' as defined under s.2(39) of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act) itself would show that
188
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
it is meant to be an establishment, whether stationary or mobile,
where captive animals are kept for exhibiting to the public or ex-situ
conservation and include a circus and off-exhibit facilities such as
rescue centres and conservation breeding centres - However, it
does not include the establishment of a licensed dealer in captive
animals - Though a 'zoo' as contemplated under Chapter IVA of
the WLP Act also deals with conservation, it emphasizes on exsitu conservation - Insofar as area covered under a sanctuary is
concerned, a safari cannot be constructed within the said area
unless there is a prior approval of the National Board of Wildlife
- 'Tiger Safaris' conceptualized by the NTCA are not for the parks
which are working either as zoos or as an extension to zoos.
[Paras 79, 80, 83]
1.2. Prima facie, there is no infirmity in the guidelines issued by
the NTCA, i.e., the 2012 Guidelines and the 2016 Guidelines
for establishing the 'Tiger Safaris' in the buffer and fringe areas
of the 'Tiger Reserve' - The said Guidelines emphasizes on the
rehabilitation of injured tigers (after suitable treatment), conflict
tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for rewilding and
release into the wild - However, the 2019 Guidelines, departing from
the aforesaid purpose, provide for sourcing of animals from zoos
in the Tiger Safaris - This would be totally contrary to the purpose
of the Tiger Conservation - 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 -
However, such a 'safari' can be established only for the purposes
specified in clause 9 of the 2016 Guidelines and not as per the
2019 Guidelines. [Paras 100, 101, 103]
1.3 On facts, the concerned authorities, who have expertise in the
matter, have approved the said site at Pakhrau - In the peculiar
facts, this Court is inclined to approve the establishment of the
'Tiger Safari' at Pakhrau. [Paras 113 and 114]
1.4. Presence of a Tiger in the forest is an indicator of the wellbeing of the ecosystem - Unless steps are taken for the protection
of the Tigers, the ecosystem revolving around Tigers cannot be
protected - The events like illegal constructions and illicit felling of
trees on a rampant scale like the one that happened in the Corbett
National Park cannot be ignored - Steps are required to prevent
this - Courts are not experts in the field - It will be appropriate that
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
189
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
experts in the field come together and come out with a solution that
would go a long way in the effective management and protection
of the Tiger Reserves. [Para 160]
1.5. The following directions need to be issued in the interests
of justice :
A.
The Safaris which are already existing and the one under
construction at Pakhrau will not be disturbed. However,
insofar as the Safari at 'Pakhrau' is concerned, the State
of Uttarakhand is directed to relocate or establish a rescue
centre in the vicinity of the 'Tiger Safari'. The directions which
would be issued by this Court with regard to establishment
and maintenance of the 'Tiger Safaris' upon receipt of the
recommendations of the Committee which is being directed to
be appointed would also be applicable to the existing Safaris
including the Safari to be established at Pakhrau.
B.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
(MoEF&CC) shall appoint a Committee consisting of the
following : (i) a representative of the NTCA; (ii) a representative
of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII); (iii) a representative of
the Central Empowered Committee (CEC); and (iv) an officer
of the MoEF&CC not below the rank of Joint Secretary as its
Member Secretary. The Committee would be entitled to co-opt
any other authority including a representative of Central Zoo
Authority (CZA) and also take the services of the experts in
the field, if found necessary.
C.
The said Committee will : (i) recommend the measures for
restoration of the damages, in the local in situ environment to
its original state before the damage was caused; (ii) assess the
environmental damage caused in the Corbett Tiger Reserve
(CTR) and quantify the costs for restoration; (iii) identify
the persons/officials responsible for such a damage. The
State shall recover the cost so quantified from the persons/
delinquent officers found responsible for the same. The cost
so recovered shall be exclusively used for the purpose of
restoration of the damage caused to the environment; and
(iv) specify how the funds so collected be utilized for active
restoration of ecological damage.
D.
The aforesaid Committee, inter alia, shall consider and
recommend :
190
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(i)
The question as to whether Tiger Safaris shall be permitted
in the buffer area or fringe area;
(ii)
If such Safaris can be permitted, then what should be the
guidelines for establishing such Safaris?
(iii) While considering the aforesaid aspect, the Committee shall
take into consideration the following factors :
a)
the approach must be of ecocentrism and not of anthro
pocentrism;
b)
the precautionary principle must be applied to ensure
that the least amount of environmental damage is
caused;
c)
the animals sourced shall not be from outside the Tiger
Reserve. Only injured, conflicted, or orphaned tigers
may be exhibited as per the 2016 Guidelines. To that
extent the contrary provisions in the 2019 Guidelines
stand quashed;
d)
That such Safaris should be proximate to the Rescue
Centres. The aforesaid factors are only some of the
factors to be taken into consideration and the Commit
tee would always be at liberty to take such other factors
into consideration as it deems fit.
(iv) The type of activities that should be permitted and prohib
ited in the buffer zone and fringe areas of the Tiger Reserve.
While doing so, if tourism is to be promoted, it has to be ecotourism. The type of construction that should be permissible
in such resorts would be in tune with the natural environment.
(v)
The number and type of resorts that should be permitted
within the close proximity of the protected areas. What re
striction to be imposed on such resorts so that they are man
aged in tune with the object of protecting and maintaining
the ecosystem rather than causing obstruction in the same.
(vi) As to within how much areas from the boundary of the pro
tected forest there should be restriction on noise level and
what should be those permissible noise levels.
(vii) The measures that are required to be taken for effective
management and protection of Tiger Reserves which shall
be applicable on a Pan India basis.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
191
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
(viii) The steps to be taken for scrupulously implementing such
recommendations.
E.
The CBI is directed to effectively investigate the matter as
directed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in its
judgment and order dated 6th September 2023, passed in
Writ Petition No.178 of 2021.
F.
The present proceedings shall be kept pending so that this
Court can monitor the steps taken by the Authorities as well
as the investigation conducted by the CBI.
G.
This Court will consider issuing appropriate directions after
the recommendations are received by this Court from the
aforesaid Committee. The Committee is requested to give its
preliminary report within a period of three months from today.
H.
The CBI shall submit a report to this Court within a period
of three months from today.
I.
The State of Uttarakhand is directed to complete the
disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officers as
expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of
six months from today. The status report in this regard shall
be submitted to this Court within a period of three months
from today. [Para 161]
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Enactment of - Purpose.
Held: The enactment of the WLP Act was necessitated since it was
noticed that there was rapid decline of India's wild animals and birds,
which was one of the richest and most varied in the world - The
Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 had become completely
outmoded - The existing State laws were not only outdated but
provided punishments that were not commensurate with the offence
and the financial benefits which accrue from poaching and trade
in wildlife produce - However, since the subject matters were
relatable to Entry 20 of the State list in the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India, the Parliament had no power to make a law
unless the Legislatures of two or more States passed a resolution
in pursuance of Article 252 of the Constitution - Accordingly, 11
States had passed resolutions to that effect - In this background,
the WLP Act came to be enacted - The entire emphasis of the
WLP Act is on the conservation, protection, and management of
wildlife. [Paras 9, 10, 46]
192
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Environment - Environmental justice - Need to drift away
from anthropocentrism principle to ecocentrism principle.
Held: The approach has to be ecocentric and not anthropocentric
- The approach has to be nature-centred where humans are a part
of nature and non-humans have intrinsic value - National Wildlife
Action Plan 2002-2012 and the Centrally Sponsored Integrated
Development of Wildlife Habitats Scheme, 2009 are centred on
the principle of ecocentrism. [Para 69, 91]
Environment - Environmental and ecological protection -
Principle of sustainable development - Discussed. [Para 77]
Environment - 'Public Trust' doctrine - Importance of, in
environmental and ecological matters - Discussed. [Para
134, 135, 136, 138]
Environment - Forest - Restoration of the damaged
ecological system - Role of the State - Principle of Ecological
Restitution - Discussed - Convention on Biological Diversity,
1992.
Held : Worldwide as well as in our jurisprudence, the law has
developed and evolved emphasizing on the restoration of the
damaged ecological system - A reversal of environmental damage
in conformity with the principle under Article 8(f) of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, 1992 (CBD) is what is required - The focus
has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar
as possible to the specific one that was damaged - Bringing the
culprits to face the proceedings is a different matter and restoration
of the damage already done is a different matter - The State
cannot run away from its responsibilities to restore the damage
done to the forest - The State, apart from preventing such acts
in the future, should take immediate steps for restoration of the
damage already done; undertake an exercise for determining the
valuation of the damage done and recover it from the persons
found responsible for causing such a damage. [Paras 156, 157
and 158]
Case Law Cited
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and
others [2012] 3 SCR 460 : (2012) 3 SCC 277 : 2012
INSC 87; Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide
Fund-India v. Union of India and others [2013] 6 SCR
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
193
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
757 : (2013) 8 SCC 234 : 2013 INSC 254; Vellore
Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others
[1996] Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647 : 1996
INSC 952; Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of
A.P. and others [2006] 2 SCR 419 : (2006) 3 SCC
549 : 2006 INSC 101; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India and others [1996] Supp.
1 SCR 507 : (1996) 5 SCC 281 : 1996 INSC 543;
Resident's Welfare Association and another v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh and others [2023] 1 SCR 601 :
(2023) 8 SCC 643 : 2023 INSC 22; State of Himachal
Pradesh and others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta
and another [2024] 1 SCR 973 : 2024 INSC 30; State
of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Uday Education and
Welfare Trust and others [2022] 19 SCR 781 : 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1469 : 2022 INSC 465; M.C. Mehta
v. Kamal Nath and others [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 12 :
(1997) 1 SCC 388 : 1996 INSC 1482; Association for
Environment Protection v. State of Kerala and others
[2013] 7 SCR 352 : (2013) 7 SCC 226 : 2013 INSC
413; Tata Housing Development Company Limited v.
Aalok Jagga and others [2019] 13 SCR 577 : (2020)
15 SCC 784 : 2019 INSC 1203; Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action and others v. Union of India and
others [1996] 2 SCR 503 : (1996) 3 SCC 212 : 1996
INSC 237; S. Jagannath v. Union of India and others
[1996] Supp. 9 SCR 848 : (1997) 2 SCC 87 : 1996
INSC 1466 - relied on.
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua [Certain Activities Carried
Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, Compensation
Judgment] (2018) I.C.J. Reports 15; The Factory at
Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), 13 September 1928,
PCIJ, Merits, p. 47 - referred to.
List of Acts
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980; National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines
for preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP), 2007; NTCA
guidelines for Normative Standards for Tourism Activities and for
Project Tiger for tiger conservation in the buffer and core areas
of the tiger reserves, 2012; NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger
194
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Safaris in Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2016;
NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in Buffer and Fringe
Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2019; National Wildlife Action Plan;
National Forest Policy, 1988; Wild Birds and Animals Protection
Act, 1912; Constitution of India; Centrally Sponsored Integrated
Development of Wildlife Habitats Scheme, 2009; Convention on
Biological Diversity, 1992.
List of Keywords
Tiger; Safari; Zoo; Reserve; Illegal; Construction; Trees; Restitution;
Wildlife; Conservation; Authority; Buffer; Fringe; Guideline; exsitu; Rescue; Board; Forest; Ecosystem; Corbett; National; Park;
Pakhrau; Committee; Ministry; Institute; Committee; Damage;
Environment; Ecocentrism; Anthropocentrism; Precautionary;
Recommendation; Disciplinary; Delinquent; Justice; Protection;
Sustainable; Development; Public Trust; Doctrine; State; Principle;
Biological; Diversity
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No.20650 Of 2023
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances for Parties
A.D.N. Rao, Harish N. Salve, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Advs. [A.Cs.],
Siddhartha Chowdhury, K. Parameshwar, [A.Cs.], M.V. Mukunda, Ms.
Kanti, Ms. Aarti Gupta, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Advs.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Archana Pathak
Dave, A.N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Advs., Ms. Shagun Thakur, Ms. Manisha
Chava, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Suhashini Sen, S. S. Rebello,
Shyam Gopal, Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanyam, Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Atul Sharma, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Ms. Deepti Arya, Ms.
Arzu Paul, Siddhant Gupta, Ms. Manisha Gupta, Rishikesh Haridas,
Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Dr.
Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Ramesh Allanki, Syed Ahmad
Naqvi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Petitioner/Applicant-in-person.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
195
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Index*
I.
BACKGROUD
Paras 1 to 3
II.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
Paras 4 to 7
III.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Paras 8 to 46
IV.
GUIDELINES ISSUED BY VARIOUS
AUTHORITIES
Paras 47 to 67
V.
CONSIDERATION
Paras 68 to 158
(a) Consideration as to whether Tiger
Safaris and Zoos are on the same
footing or not.
Paras 78 to 103
(b) Whether establishment of a 'Tiger
Safari' at Pakhrau is legal or not.
Paras 104 to 114
(c)
Illegal construction and felling of
trees
Paras 115 to 132
(d) 'Public Trust' Doctrine
Paras 133 to 138
(e) Concern of the CEC
Paras 139 to 149
(f)
Principle of Ecological Restitution
Paras 150 to 158
VI.
CONCLUSIONS
Paras 159 to 163
ABBREVIATIONS
CBD
 : Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992
CBI
 : Central Bureau of Investigation
CEC
 : Central Empowered Committee
CZA
 : Central Zoo Authority
DFO
 : Divisional Forest Officer
ERC
 : Elephant Rehabilitation/Rescue Centres
ESZ
 : Eco Sensitive Zone
FAC
 : Forest Advisory Committee
FC
 : Forest Clearance
FC Act
 : Forest (Conservation) Act,1980
FSI
 : Forest Survey of India
* Ed Note : Pagination as per original judgment.
196
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
HoFF
 : Head of Forest Forces
IFS
 : Indian Forest Service
IFSR
 : India State of Forest Report
MDF
 : Moderate Dense Forest
MoEF&CC
 : Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change
NPV
 : Net Present Value
NTCA
 : National Tiger Conservation Authority
OF
 : Open Forest
PCCF
 : Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
SC, NBWL
 : Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life
SOP
 : Standard Operating Procedure
sq.km.
 : square kilometer
TCP
 : Tiger Conservation Plan ("TCP
VDF
 : Very Dense Forest
WII
 : Wildlife Institute of India
WLP Act
 : Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
"The tiger perishes without the forest and the forest perishes
without its tigers. Therefore, the tiger should stand guard over
the forest and the forest should protect all its tigers."
This is how the importance of the tigers in the ecosystem has
been succinctly described in 'Mahabharta'. The existence of the
forest is necessary for the protection of tigers. In turn, if the tiger
is protected, the ecosystem which revolves around him is also
protected. The tiger represents the apex of the animal pyramid
and the protection of their habitat must be a priority. "A healthy
tiger population is an indicator of sustainable development in the
13 tiger range countries"1.
1
Midori Paxton
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
197
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
In spite of such an importance given to the tiger and many statutory
provisions enacted for the conservation and protection of the tiger,
the present case depicts a sorry state of affairs as to how human
greed has led to devastating one of the most celebrated abodes of
tigers i.e. the Corbett Tiger Reserve.
When we consider this issue, it will also be apposite to refer to the
restoration experiment at the Yellowstone National Park of the United
States of America.
The impact of the absence of carnivores in a forest and the
regenerative effect on their re-introduction was witnessed in the
recent past in the famous Yellowstone National Park.
Wolves were hunted down by the mankind and the last recorded
wolf in the park was shot down by a park ranger in the year 1926.
Resultantly, owing to lack of apex predators in the park, the population
of deer and other herbivores rose significantly. Efforts made by
humans to control the herbivore population proved unsuccessful
and resultantly these animals grazed away the vegetation which
had the cascading effect of soil erosion and depletion of forest. As
an ambitious restoration experiment, the scientists re-introduced a
pack of wolves in the Yellowstone National Park in the year 1995.
Once the wolves arrived, even though few in number, the same had
remarkable effects. The obvious outcome of such reintroduction was
the reduction in the population of deer; but even more significantly,
the wolves changed the behaviour of the deer which started avoiding
certain parts of the park, particularly the valleys and gorges. This
resulted in regeneration of the flora of the national park and an
increase in the height of trees which quintupled in mere six years.
The valley sides quickly became forests of aspen and willow
and cottonwood. Consequently, the birds started migrating to the
Yellowstone National Park, sparking an increase in migratory and
songbirds. The population of beavers increased and like the wolves,
they too are ecosystem engineers who built natural dams in the
rivers, creating habitat for otters, muskrats, ducks, fishes, reptiles
and amphibians.
The wolves hunted the coyotes as well, which resulted in the
rise of rabbits and mice, enticing more hawks, weasels and
foxes. The ravens and eagles came down to feed on the carrion
198
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
left by the wolves. The regeneration of shrubs also aided in the
growth of bears, who mostly fed on berries and the carrion. The
bears also reinforced the impact of the wolves by killing deer.
Most interestingly, the experiment of reintroduction of the wolves
helped in stabilising the water banks and fixing the course of
rivers. There was reduction in soil erosion due to recovery of the
valley and the vegetation. So, a small number of wolves left an
indelible mark in the transformation of the first national park of the
world, the Yellowstone National Park and its physical geography
within a short period of around 20 years. This kind of regenerative
effect cannot even be thought of by human efforts whatever the
magnitude be thereof.
Looking at the empirical evidence of the impact of carnivores in
maintaining the ecosystem of forests, the efforts of tiger conservation
in the Jim Corbett National Park, an iconic National Park of this
country is imperative and of utmost importance.
I.
BACKGROUND
1.
The background leading to the present proceedings, in brief, is thus :
1.1 Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who has intervened in the present
proceedings, had approached the Delhi High Court by filing
W.P. (C) No. 8729 of 2021 and CM Application No. 27181 of
2021, alleging therein that illegal construction of bridges and
walls within the Tiger Breeding Habitat of Corbett Tiger Reserve
and that too, without the approval from the Competent Authority
were being carried out. He had sought intervention of the Court
to protect and conserve the Biological Diversity, flora and fauna
as well as the ecology of the Corbett National Park.
1.2 The Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 23rd August 2021,
disposed of the said petition observing thus :
"We have heard the Petitioner. Looking to the averments in
the writ petition and the provisions of the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972, more particularly, Section 38(O)(b) thereof, we
deem it appropriate, at this stage, to direct the Respondent
to treat this writ petition as a Representation and look
into the issues flagged and highlighted by the Petitioner.
Needless to state that in case the Respondent finds merit
in the issues raised, necessary action shall be taken by
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
199
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
the Respondent, in accordance with law, keeping in mind
the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the
necessity of conserving the flora and fauna as well as the
ecology of the National Park. For the purpose of taking
a decision and consequential action, if any, it is open to
the Respondent to call for an inspection report, in order
to verify the factual status with respect to the allegations
made in the writ petition. The exercise shall be carried
out by the Respondent as expeditiously as possible and
practicable."
1.3 The Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital,
noticing a news published in "Times of India", vide its order
dated 27th October 2021, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 178 of 2021,
took suo motu cognizance of the illegal construction activities
being undertaken by unknown persons. It will be relevant to
refer to the said order, which reads thus :
"A news item has appeared in the "Times of India"
newspaper, dated 23.10.2021, regarding the illegal
construction activities being undertaken by unknown
persons, which are clearly in violation of the Forest Laws.
The said illegal construction activities are being undertaken
in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, one of the premier Tiger
Reserves of the country.
2.
According to the said article, a Committee of the
National Tiger Conservation Authority ("NTCA"
for short) had recently visited the Corbett Tiger
Reserve. The Committee discovered not only illegal
construction of bridges and buildings, but even
the felling of trees. The Committee further noted
that there has been violation of the provisions
of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, as well as the Indian Forest
Act, 1927. Surprisingly, a single lane road is being
constructed in the core/critical habitat of the Corbett
Tiger Reserve. Despite the fact that the Committee
has recommended that all illegal constructions
in Morghatti and Pakhrau FRH campuses be
demolished, and eco-restoration work be undertaken
200
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
with immediate effect, no concrete steps have been
taken by the respondents.
3.
Moreover, despite the fact that the Committee
recommended that the Ministry of Environment should
initiate action against the responsible officers, as per
the provisions contained in the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980, not even initial steps have been taken even
by the Ministry. Therefore, this Court issues notices
to the respondents.
4.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Assistant Solicitor
General for the Union of India, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent no.1.
5.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned Chief Standing Counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand, accepts notice on behalf
of the respondent nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
6.
Issue notice to the respondent no.4. Rule made
returnable within four weeks.
7.
The Registry is directed to implead the National Tiger
Conservation Authority as a party respondent in this
Writ Petition.
8.
Meanwhile, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
(General), Uttarakhand, the respondent no.5, the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife),
Uttarakhand, the respondent no.6, and the Director
of the Corbett National Park, Uttarakhand, the
respondent no.8, are directed to inspect the site,
and to submit a report with regard to the nature and
extent of the illegal constructions being carried out,
with regard to the persons, who are responsible for
carrying out the said illegal constructions, and with
regard to the concrete steps taken by the respondent
nos. 5, 6 and 8 against such persons, and against
the illegal constructions."
1.4 It appears that in the meantime, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal
also filed an Application No.1558 of 2021 before the Central
Empowered Committee ("CEC" for short), bringing to the notice
of the CEC the following :
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
201
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
"a. Illegal felling of trees in the name of establishment
of Tiger Safari in Gujjar Sot, Pakhrau Block,
Sonandi Range, Kalagarh Division, Corbett Tiger
Reserve;
b.
Illegal construction of buildings and waterbodies etc.
by way of cutting trees illegally in
(i)
Saneh Forest Rest House toward Pakhrau
Forest Rest House.
(ii)
Pakhrau Forest Rest House towards Morghatti
Forest Rest House and
(iii) Moraghatti Forest Rest House towards Kalagarh
Forest Rest House.
According to the Applicant the above said activities within
buffer area of Corbett Tiger Reserve apart from being illegal
also cause irreversible damage to the Biological Diversity,
Ecology, Flora and Fauna in the Corbett landscape. The
Applicant has requested that appropriate action be taken
in accordance with law."
1.5 It further appears that I.A. No. 186910 of 2022 came to be
registered in the present proceedings based on the CEC Report
No.30 of 2022 in Application No.1557 of 2022 filed before it by
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal. It was alleged by Mr. Gaurav Kumar
Bansal in the said proceedings that in the Rajaji National Park
as well as in the Corbett National Park, illegal roads were being
constructed. In the said I.A., we have passed the following order
on 11th January 2023 :
"I.A. NO.186910/2022
[CEC REPORT 30/2022- REPORT OF CEC IN APPLN.
NO.1557/2022 FILED BEFORE IT BY GAURAV KR.
BANSAL]
IN RE : GAURAV KR. BANSAL
Issue notice, returnable on 08.02.2023.
Shri Abhishek Atrey, learned counsel, appears and accepts
notice on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand.
202
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
By way of ad interim order, we direct that all construction
activities in respect of the road in question shall be stopped,
until further orders."
1.6 Shri Bansal had also filed a Contempt Petition (Civil) No.319
of 2019, alleging that the Authorities had acted in violation of
the orders passed by this Court. We, therefore, passed the
following order on 11th January, 2023 :
"Shri Mahendra Vyas, Member of the CEC, states that
report of the CEC would be filed within ten days and
copies thereof shall also be supplied to the counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand.
The respondent(s)/State shall file reply to the report of the
CEC prior to 03.02.2023.
Put up on 08.02.2023."
1.7 When the aforesaid I.A.(s) and Contempt Petition(s) along with
I.A. No.20650 of 2023, containing the report of the CEC on
Application No.1558 of 2021 filed by Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal
before it was placed before us on 8th February 2023, we have
passed the following order :
"CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.319/2021, I.A.
NOS.186910/2022 AND 20650/2023 (ITEM NO.8.)
1.
Issue notice in I.A. Nos.186910/2022 and 20650/2023 to
the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
and the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA),
returnable on 15.03.2023.
2.
In addition to the usual mode, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to serve notice through the Standing Counsel
for the respondent/State.
3.
A perusal of the report(s) would reveal that various
constructions have been carried out within the area of the
Tiger Reserve. The photograph would show that a cordoned
area has been constructed between the Tiger Reserve.
4.
Mr. Abhishek Attri, learned counsel appearing for the State
of Uttrakhand, submits that the concept of jungle tourism
permits such a safari to be constructed in jungle areas,
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
203
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
and according to the learned counsel, such a phenomenon
is acceptable worldwide.
5.
Prima facie, we do not appreciate the necessity of having a
zoo inside Tiger Reserves or National Parks. The concept
of protecting Tiger Reserves and National Parks is that the
fauna must be permitted to reside in the natural habitat
and not the artificial environs.
6.
We, therefore, call upon the NTCA to explain the rationale
behind granting such a permission for permitting Tiger
Safaris within Tiger Reserves and National Parks.
7.
Until further orders, we restrain the authorities from making
any construction within the areas notified as Tiger Reserves
and National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
8.
The State of Uttarakhand is directed to file its reply in I.A.
Nos.186910/2022 and 20650/2023, within three weeks.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.302/2020 (ITEM NO.9)
List on 13.02.2023."
1.8 Subsequently, an I.A. came to be filed by the State of
Uttarakhand for modification of the order passed by this Court
dated 8th February 2023. It was submitted in the I.A. that the
State of Uttarakhand was not in a position to even carry out the
routine management activities, such as construction of watch
towers, water bodies, and other necessary activities required for
the day-to-day management of the Sanctuary, National Parks,
and Reserves. It was submitted on behalf of the State that all
such works are covered and approved by this Court in its order
of 14th September 2007, upon recommendation of the CEC. In
the said I.A., it was submitted that all illegal constructions have
since been demolished and even the debris has been removed.
The State of Uttarakhand, therefore, prayed for modification of
the order of this Court dated 8th February 2023.
1.9 We passed the following order dated 28th November 2023 :
"1.
I.A.No.181182 of 2023 is filed for modification of the order
dated 08th February 2023 permitting the construction
activities mentioned in paragraph 6 and 8 of I.A. No.181182
of 2023.
204
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2.
Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, has raised
concern about some of the items with regard to which
permission is sought.
3.
We find that most of the items for which the permission is
sought are essential for maintaining the Tiger Reserves,
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
4.
Therefore, we allow the construction activities as mentioned
in paragraph 6 and 8 of the I.A. No.181182 of 2023.
5.
If under the garb of the orders passed by this Court, the
State Government misuses the liberty and raises some
constructions which are unnecessary, the same can always
be brought to the notice of the Court.
6.
However, taking into consideration the past experience with
regard to illegal construction in Jim Corbett National Park
and Rajaji National Park, we warn the State Government
that it shall ensure that the aforesaid constructions are
made strictly in accordance with the relevant guidelines.
7.
With these observations and directions, these applications
are disposed of."
1.10 On 11th January 2024, we segregated the Contempt Petition
(C) No. 319 of 2021 and I.A. No.186910 of 2022, since they
pertained to the Rajaji National Park.
1.11 In the meantime, Writ Petition No. 178 of 2021 was also heard by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
on 1st September 2023. The judgment in the said matter came
to be delivered on 6th September 2023. The operative part of
the judgment and order dated 6th September 2023 reads thus :
"29. This Court, after considering the material on record,
comes to the conclusion that the present matter
falls within the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Constitution Bench and we are satisfied that the material
on record does disclose a prima facie case calling for
an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
30. Therefore, the present matter is referred to C.B.I. for
proper and uninfluenced investigation in accordance
with law.
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
205
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal
31. A copy of this order be sent to the Director, C.B.I.,
New Delhi for compliance.
32. All the authorities in the State, if requested, are
directed to cooperate with the C.B.I. in conducting
fair investigation of the case.
33. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the allegations or make any
comment on the contents of the enquiries and reports."
1.12 We have heard the I.A. No.20650 of 2023 about the issues
concerning the Corbett National Park on the 11th and 12th of
January 2024.
2.
A perusal of report of the CEC, which is numbered as I.A. No.20650
of 2023 as well as other reports submitted by various authorities,
which were also taken into consideration by the CEC in its report,
depicts a bleak picture of things in the Corbett National Park which
is one of the first National Parks established in India. The reports
make it clear that some of the Forest officers have blatantly resorted
to illegal felling of trees, proceeding with construction activities in
flagrant disregard of the provisions of the law and orders of this
Court. We therefore decided to treat this as a test case and determine
as to what directions are necessary to be issued, so that in future,
such illegal activities are not repeated and as to what measures are
required to be resorted to for protecting the precious wildlife.
3.
We extensively heard Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae,
Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State
of Uttarakhand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Gaurav Kumar
Bansal, applicant-in-person.
II.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
4.
The submissions made by Mr. K. Parameshwar could be summarized
as under :
(i)
The forests of the Corbett Tiger Reserve form an essential
corridor link between the Corbett and the Rajaji National Park
through the Rawasana - Sonanadi Corridor in the Lansdowne
Forest Division. The construction of 'Tiger Safari' would lead
to habitat fragmentation.
206
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(ii)
That, under Section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as "WLP Act"), the State Government,
on the recommendations of the Tiger Conservation Authority, is
required to notify an area as a tiger reserve. It is also required
to prepare a Tiger Conservation Plan (hereinafter referred to
as "TCP") including the staff development and deployment
plan for the proper management of each area to ensure the
protection of the tiger reserve, ecologically compatible land
uses in the tiger reserves and the forestry operations of regular
forest divisions.
(iii)
That, under sub-section (4) of Section 38V of the WLP Act,
the concept of integrity of Tiger Reserve requires protection of
buffer area and adequate dispersal for the species.
(iv)
That, the TCP prepared by the National Tiger Conservation
Authority ("NTCA" for short) proposed a Safari at the
Karnashram area of Lansdowne Forest Division. However, the
Central Zoo Authority ("CZA" for short) unilaterally changed the
proposed site to Pakhrau Block, Kalagarh Division.
(v)
That, the WLP Act emphasizes on the conservation of wildlife
and not tourism. However, establishing a zoo in a buffer area
would amount to giving preference to tourism over wildlife
protection.
(vi)
That, conservation of wildlife should be eco-centric and not
anthropocentric.
(vii) That, the provisions of the WLP Act would reveal that the
National Board of Wildlife, State Board of Wildlife, Chief Wildlife
Warden, and the NTCA are experts for in situ conservation of
wildlife whereas the CZA is an expert body for ex situ mode
of conservation.
(viii) That, the final authority insofar as in situ 'Tiger Safari' is
concerned should be exclusively within the domain of NTCA,
which is an expert body insofar as conservation and protection
of Tigers is concerned.