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.

* 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 anthropocentrism;

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 Committee 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 prohibited 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 restriction to be imposed on such resorts so that they are managed 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 protected 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. He therefore submits that the 2019

Guidelines, which restore the primacy to the CZA, are against

the said principle.

(ix) That, until 2016, the regulatory regime only recognized safaris

as being an ex-situ mode of conservation.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 207

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(x) That, the ‘Tiger Safari’ is not defined under the WLP Act or

any other statute. The concept of ‘Safari’ is found only in the

proviso to Section 33(a). The proviso to Section 33(a) also

bans the construction of ‘hotels, zoos and safari parks’ inside

a sanctuary and National Parks without the prior approval of

the National Board.

(xi) That, for the first time, the concept of ‘‘Tiger Safari’’ in the wild

was introduced by the Government in the Tourism Guidelines,

2012. It provided for the creation of ‘Tiger Safaris’ in the buffer

areas of tiger reserves ‘which experience immense tourist influx

in the core/critical tiger habitat for viewing tigers.’

(xii) That, the ‘‘Tiger Safari’’ as is envisaged, is not a measure of

conservation but a means for tourism.

(xiii) That, though the 2016 Guidelines provided that the injured,

conflict or orphaned tigers may be exhibited in ‘Tiger Safaris’,

the 2019 Guidelines provided that the animals shall be

selected as per Section 38I of the WLP Act, providing thereby

that the animals from the zoos would be brought in the ‘Tiger

Safaris’.

(xiv) That, the understanding of the NTCA is that ‘Tiger Safaris’

are merely ‘zoos’ made inside the Tiger Reserve, which is

erroneous.

(xv) That, the 2019 Guidelines which permit the animals from zoos

outside their natural habitat to be relocated in the ‘Tiger Safaris’

situated in the buffer zone, would lead to the risk of zoonotic

disease transmission. It is submitted that, if the animals from

zoos are allowed into the Tiger Reserves, it will not only cause

interference with the natural habitat of the animals, but the

onset of zoonotic disease would be highly dangerous to the

tigers in the National Park.

(xvi) Insofar as existing zoos in the Tiger Reserves are concerned,

the said zoos were established much before the creation of the

NTCA and the conservation of tigers through Tiger Reserves.

(xvii) That, it is necessary to employ the precautionary principle so

as to prevent harm that would be caused on account of the

relocation of animals from the zoos to the Tiger Reserves/

Safaris. 

208 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(xviii) That, the delegation of power by the NTCA to the CZA, which is

an expert body only for captive animals in ex situ conservation

violates the entire scheme of the WLP Act.

(xix) That, the Court must employ the restorative principle to restore

the damages caused to the environment when constructions

were raised for the Safari.

(xx) Mr. Parmeshwar has also given various suggestions for the

protection of wildlife and restoration of environmental damages

as has been done in the case of the Jim Corbett National Park.

5. The submissions of Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni could be summarized as

under :

(i) It is submitted that insofar as the illegal constructions are

concerned, the same has already been demolished and even

debris has been removed.

(ii) That, all illegal construction works of buildings including the

Forest Rest House at Mor Ghatti, Pakhrau, Kugadda Forest

Camp, and Saneh Forest Rest House were being carried out

by the Divisional Forest Officer (“DFO” for short), Kalagarh

without the requisite administrative and financial approvals of

the Competent Authority. That, the said works were executed

solely under the orders of the DFO, Kalagarh, who was not

competent to sanction the said works.

(iii) That, proceedings have been initiated against the erring

officials/officers. Immediately Mr. J.S. Suhag, the then Principal

Chief Conservator of Forests (“PCCF” for short) Wildlife, since

deceased, was suspended; the Field Director of Corbett was

transferred and the DFO Kalagarh along with the Range Officer,

Kalagarh and several other officials lower in rank were also

suspended.

(iv) An FIR was also lodged by the Vigilance Department against

the DFO Kishan Chand and a Forest Ranger for offences

punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B,

218/34 IPC, Section 26 of the Forest Act and Section 13(1)(a)

and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(v) The buffer areas are peripheral to core areas. As per Section

38V(4) of the WLP Act, a lesser degree of habitat protection 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 209

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

is accorded and this aims to promote co-existence between

wildlife and human activity with due recognition of the

livelihood, developmental, social, and cultural rights of the local

people. However, in carrying out these activities, the requisite

permissions have been taken.

(vi) That, the project for establishing ‘Tiger Safari’ was not initiated

by the State of Uttarakhand. It was NTCA, which wrote to the

Field Directors of four (04) Tiger Reserves across the county,

by letter dated 19th December 2014, calling upon them to send

a proposal for the establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’ in the buffer

area of Tiger Reserves.

(vii) Pursuant to this, a proposal was forwarded by the State of

Uttarakhand on the 5th of June 2015 to establish the ‘Tiger Safari’

and an in-principal approval was granted by the NTCA with a

further direction to forward the same to the CZA for vetting.

(viii) That, under the provisions of Section 38H of the WLP Act,

the CZA is the statutory authority for grant of approval for the

establishment of ‘Tiger Safaris’.

(ix) That, TCP for the Corbett Tiger Reserve was forwarded by the

State of Uttarakhand to the Government of India on 27th January

2015. That, the Government of India granted its approval on 4th

March 2015 to the TCP prepared by the State of Uttarakhand.

The said TCP also had a plan for the setting up of a rescue

centre-cum-tiger safari in the buffer area of Corbett Tiger Reserve.

(x) Vide letter dated 12th February 2019, the CZA conveyed its

approval for the establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’ in the Gujar

Sot, Pakhrau Block, Sona Nadi Range, Kalagarh Division,

Corbett Tiger Reserve (hereinafter referred to as “Pakhrau”)

on an area of 106.16 Hectares.

(xi) Though initially it was proposed to establish the ‘Tiger Safari’

at Karnashram area of Lansdowne Forest Division, the said

site was found unsuitable. The site at Pakhrau was found to

be more suitable since it was at the edge of the buffer zone.

(xii) After the CZA granted its approval, an in-principal approval

under the Forest Conservation Act was granted by the

Government of India on 30th October 2020.

210 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(xiii) That, at the relevant time, setting up of a ‘Tiger Safari’ was

considered as a ‘part forest and part non-forestry’ activity. As

such, the State of Uttarakhand had approached the Government

of India for getting the Forest Clearance for 15% of the area,

as mandated. However, as of today, the position is different

inasmuch as the establishment of zoos and the ‘Tiger Safari’

are now considered as ‘forestry activities’ and do not require

any Forest Clearance.

(xiv) Thereafter, Stage-II clearance was granted on 10th September

2021.

(xv) As such, the ‘Tiger Safari’ was established due to the initiative

taken by the NTCA and after the grant of all the requisite

approvals.

(xvi) It was submitted that the project “Tiger Safari’ has been

completed to the extent of 80%, investing a huge amount of

public money.

(xvii) As such, the allegations about the violation of statutory

provisions for the establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ are without

substance.

(xviii) That, the report of the Forest Survey of India (“FSI” for short)

which was entrusted with the work of carrying out the survey

regarding the illegal felling of trees is concerned, the same

does not depict a correct picture.

(xix) That, the total area involved in the construction of the ‘Tiger

Safari’ was approximately 16 Hectares and it is impossible that

in such a small area, 6000 trees could be felled.

(xx) When the State applied for Forest Clearance for the

establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ project, the number of trees

present in the 16 Hectares was enumerated after counting

them physically which was also contained in the proposal. The

said proposal mentioned that there are 3,620 trees standing

on the site.

(xxi) In the survey conducted by the Forest Department, it was found

that, apart from 163 trees for which there was valid permission,

an additional 97 trees were cut down in the process.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 211

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(xxii) That, the FSI report is based on Google Image calculation and

does not depict the correct picture.

(xxiii) That, the FSI was asked by the State of Uttarakhand to provide

the methodology used for arriving at its report, but the FSI

failed to do so.

(xxiv) That, the works which are carried out after obtaining the

permission of this Court by order dated 28th November 2023

are all routine management activities, such as setting up of

watch towers and other necessary activities required for the

day-to-day management of the Sanctuaries, National Parks

and Reserves.

(xxv) Insofar as Interpretation Centre is concerned, it was submitted

that the Interpretation Centre has been held to be a ‘forestry

activity’ not requiring Forest Clearance from the Central

Government.

(xxvi) It was further submitted that, the area of Pakhrau Tiger Safari

is 106.16 Hectares, which amounts to only 0.082% of the total

area of the Corbett Tiger Reserve and 0.22% of the buffer area

of the Tiger Reserve. In any case, it is situated at the edge

of the buffer zone. On the other side of the buffer zone, there

are farm lands of the villagers residing in the adjoining area.

As such, the contention that the establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’

would shrink the available tiger habitat and as such, obstruct the

corridors for the movements of the tigers is without substance.

6. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG submitted that the 2016

Guidelines took into consideration the concern of injured tigers,

conflict tigers, or orphaned tiger cubs. However, the 2019 Guidelines

were issued to bring it in tune with Section 38I of the WLP Act. It is

submitted that, in the TCP submitted by the State of Uttarakhand, a

‘Tiger Safari’ was proposed at the Karnashram area of Lansdowne

Forest Division. Ms. Bhati submitted that there are about 20 Safaris

situated in the National Parks. Some of them have been operating

since the 1970s.

7. Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal reiterated that various illegal constructions

were made in the Corbett National Park in total violation of the

statutory provisions. He further submitted that illegal felling of trees

was also done to facilitate the illegal construction. 

212 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

III. STATUTORY PROVISIONS

8. Before we consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, it will be relevant to refer to certain provisions of the WLP Act.

9. The statement of objects and reasons for the WLP Act would reveal

that 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. Some

wild animals and birds had already become extinct in the country and

others were in danger of being so. Areas that were once teeming with

wildlife had become devoid of it and even in Sanctuaries and National

Parks, the protection afforded to wildlife needed to be improved. It

was noticed that, the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912

(8 of 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. It was noticed

that such laws mainly related to the control of hunting and did not

emphasize the other factors which were also prime reasons for the

decline of India’s wildlife, namely, taxidermy and trade in wildlife and

products derived therefrom.

10. 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 of India. Accordingly, 11 States had passed resolutions

to that effect. In this background, the WLP Act came to be enacted.

11. The long title of the WLP Act was amended by the Wild Life (Protection)

Amendment Act, 2022 (No. 18 of 2022), which reads thus :

“An Act to provide for the [conservation, protection and

management of wild life] and for matters connected

therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to

ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the

country.”

[emphasis supplied]

12. Prior to the aforesaid amendment, the bracketed portion read thus :

“protection of wild animals, birds and plants”

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 213

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “animal”, which

reads thus :

“(1) “animal” includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,

fish, other chordates and invertebrates and also includes

their young and eggs;”

14. Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “captive animal”,

which reads thus :

“(5) “captive animal” means any animal, specified in

Schedule I or Schedule II, which is captured or kept or

bred in captivity;”

15. Sub-section (20A) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “National

Board”, which reads thus :

“(20A) “National Board” means the National Board for Wild

Life constituted under Section 5A;”

16. Sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “National Park”,

which reads thus :

“(21) “National Park” means an area declared, whether

under Section 35 or Section 38, or deemed, under subsection (3) of Section 66, to be declared, as a National Park;”

17. Sub-section (24A) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “protected

area”, which reads thus :

“(24A) “protected area” means a National Park, a sanctuary,

a conservation reserve or a community reserve notified

under Sections 18, 35, 36-A and 36-C of the Act;”

18. Sub-section (26) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “sanctuary”,

which reads thus :

“(26) “sanctuary” means an area declared as a sanctuary

by notification under the provisions of Chapter IV of this

Act and shall also include a deemed sanctuary under

sub-section (4) of Section 66;”

19. Sub-Section (36) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “wild animal”,

which reads thus :

“(36) “wild animal” means any animal specified in Schedule

I or Schedule II and found wild in nature;”

214 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

20. Sub-section (39) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “zoo”, which

reads thus :

“(39) “zoo” means an establishment, whether stationary or

mobile, where captive animals are kept for exhibiting to the

public or ex-situ conservation and includes a circus and offexhibit facilities such as rescue centres and conservation

breeding centres, but does not include an establishment

of a licensed dealer in captive animals.”

21. Chapter IV of the WLP Act deals with “protected areas”. Section 18

provides for “Declaration of sanctuary”, which reads thus :

“18. Declaration of sanctuary.—(1) The State Government

may, by notification, declare its intention to constitute any

area other than an area comprised within any reserve

forest or the territorial waters as a sanctuary if it considers

that such area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral,

geomorphological, natural or zoological significance, for

the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild

life or its environment.

(2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall

specify, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of

such area.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it shall be

sufficient to describe the area by roads, rivers, ridges or

other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries.”

22. It will be relevant to refer to Section 33 of the WLP Act, which deals

with “Control of sanctuaries”. It reads thus :

“33. Control of sanctuaries.—The Chief Wild Life Warden

shall be the authority who shall control, manage and protect

all sanctuaries in accordance with such management

plans for the sanctuary approved by him as per the

guidelines issued by the Central Government and in case

the sanctuary also falls under the Scheduled Areas or

areas where the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional

Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

is applicable, in accordance with the management plan

for such sanctuary prepared after due consultation with 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 215

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

the Gram Sabha concerned and for that purpose, within

the limits of any sanctuary,—

(a) may construct such roads, bridges, buildings,

fences or barrier gates, and carry out such other

works as he may consider necessary for the purposes

of such sanctuary :

Provided that no construction of tourist lodges,

including Government lodges, for commercial

purposes, hotels, zoos and safari parks shall be

undertaken inside a sanctuary except with the

prior approval of the National Board;

(b) shall take such steps as will ensure the security

of wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation

of the sanctuary and wild animals therein;

(c) may take such measures, in the interests of

wild life, as he may consider necessary for the

improvement of any habitat;

(d) may regulate, control or prohibit, in keeping with

the interests of wild life, the grazing or movement

of livestock.”

[emphasis supplied]

23. Section 35 of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration of National Parks”,

which reads thus :

“35. Declaration of National Parks.—(1) Whenever it

appears to the State Government that an area, whether

within a sanctuary or not, is, by reason of its ecological,

faunal, floral, geomorphological or zoological association

or importance, needed to be constituted as a National Park

for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing

wild life therein or its environment, it may, by notification,

declare its intention to constitute such area as a National

Park :

Provided that where any part of the territorial waters

is proposed to be included in such National Park, the

provisions of Section 26A shall, as far as may be, apply 

216 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

in relation to the declaration of a National Park as they

apply in relation to the declaration of a sanctuary.

(2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall define

the limits of the area which is intended to be declared as

a National Park.

(3) Where any area is intended to be declared as a

National Park, the provisions of Sections 19 to 26-A [both

inclusive except clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section

24)] shall, as far as may be, apply to the investigation and

determination of claims, and extinguishment of rights, in

relation to any land in such area as they apply to the said

matters in relation to any land in a sanctuary.

(3A) When the State Government declares its intention

under sub-section (1) to constitute any area as a National

Park, the provisions of Sections 27 to 33-A (both inclusive),

shall come into effect forthwith, until the publication of

the notification declaring such National Park under subsection (4).

(3B) Till such time as the rights of the affected persons

are finally settled under Sections 19 to 26A [both inclusive

except clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 24], the

State Government shall make alternative arrangements

required for making available fuel, fodder and other forest

produce to the persons affected, in terms of their rights

as per the Government records.

(4) When the following events have occurred, namely,—

(a) the period for preferring claims has elapsed, and

all claims, if any, made in relation to any land in an

area intended to be declared as a National Park,

have been disposed of by the State Government, and

(b) all rights in respect of lands proposed to be

included in the National Park have become vested

in the State Government,

the State Government shall publish a notification

specifying the limits of the area which shall be

comprised within the National Park and declare that 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 217

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

the said area shall be a National Park on and from

such date as may be specified in the notification.

(5) No alteration of the boundaries of a National Park

by the State Government shall be made except on a

recommendation of the National Board.

(6) No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any Wild

Life including forest produce from a National Park or

destroy or damage or divert the habitat of any wild animal

by any act whatsoever or divert, stop or enhance the flow

of water into or outside the National Park, except under

and in accordance with a permit granted by the Chief Wild

Life Warden, and no such permit shall be granted unless

the State Government being satisfied in consultation with

the National Board that such removal of wild life from the

National Park or the change in the flow of water into or

outside the National Park is necessary for the improvement

and better management of wild life therein, authorises the

issue of such permit :

Provided that where the forest produce is removed from

a National Park, the same may be used for meeting the

personal bona fide needs of the people living in and

around the National Park and shall not be used for any

commercial purpose.

(7) No grazing of any livestock shall be permitted in a

National Park and no livestock shall be allowed to enter

therein except where such livestock is used as a vehicle

by a person authorised to enter such National Park.

(8) The provisions of Sections 27 and 28, Section 30 to

32 (both inclusive), and clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section

33, Section 33A and Section 34 shall, as far as may be,

apply in relation to a National Park as they apply in relation

to a sanctuary.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, in case of

an area, whether within a sanctuary or not, where the rights

have been extinguished and the land has become vested

in the State Government under any Act or otherwise, such

area may be notified by it, by a notification, as a National 

218 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Park and the proceedings under Sections 19 to 26 (both

inclusive) and the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4)

of this section shall not apply.”

24. Section 36A of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration and management

of a conservation reserve”, which reads thus :

“36A. Declaration and management of a conservation

reserve.—(1) The State Government may, after having

consultations with the local communities, declare any area

owned by the Government, particularly the areas adjacent

to National Parks and sanctuaries and those areas which

link one protected area with another, as a conservation

reserve for protecting landscapes, seascapes, flora and

fauna and their habitat :

Provided that where the conservation reserve includes

any land owned by the Central Government, its prior

concurrence shall be obtained before making such

declaration.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32 and

clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 shall, as far as may be,

apply in relation to a conservation reserve as they apply

in relation to a sanctuary.”

25. Section 36C of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration and management

of community reserve”, which reads thus :

“36-C. Declaration and management of community

reserve.—(1) The State Government may, where the

community or an individual has volunteered to conserve

wild life and its habitat, declare any private or community

land not comprised within a National Park, sanctuary

or a conservation reserve, as a community reserve,

for protecting fauna, flora and traditional or cultural

conservation values and practices.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32

and clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 shall, as far as may

be, apply in relation to a community reserve as they apply

in relation to a sanctuary.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 219

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(3) After the issue of notification under sub-section (1), no

change in the land use pattern shall be made within the

community reserve, except in accordance with a resolution

passed by the management committee and approval of

the same by the State Government.”

26. Chapter IVA of the WLP Act deals with “Central Zoo Authority and

Recognition of Zoos”. The only relevant provision for consideration

of the issue in the present matter is Section 38-I, which reads thus :

“38-I. Acquisition of animals by a zoo.—(1) Subject to

the other provisions of this Act, no zoo shall acquire, sell

or transfer any wild animal or captive animal specified in

Schedules I except with the previous permission of the

Authority.

(2) No zoo shall acquire, sell or transfer any wild or captive

animal except from or to a recognized zoo :

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a

conservation breeding centre.”

27. Chapter IVB of the WLP Act deals with “National Tiger Conservation

Authority”. Section 38-O deals with “Powers and Functions of Tiger

Conservation Authority”, which reads thus :

“38-O. Powers and functions of Tiger Conservation

Authority.—(1) The Tiger Conservation Authority shall

have the following powers and perform the following

functions, namely : —

(a) to approve the Tiger Conservation Plan prepared

by the State Government under sub-section (3) of

Section 38V of this Act;

(b) evaluate and assess various aspect of sustainable

ecology and disallow any ecologically unsustainable

land use such as, mining, industry and other projects

within the tiger reserves;

(c) lay down normative standards for tourism activities

and guidelines for project tiger from time to time for

tiger conservation in the buffer and core area of tiger

reserves and ensure their due compliance;

220 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(d) provide for management focus and measures for

addressing conflicts of men and wild animals and to

emphasise on co-existence in forest areas outside

the National Parks, sanctuaries or tiger reserve, in

the working plan code;

(e) provide information on protection measures including

future conservation plan, estimation of population of

tiger and its natural prey species, status of habitats,

disease surveillance, mortality survey, patrolling,

reports on untoward happenings and such other

management aspects as it may deem fit including

future plan conservation;

(f) approve, co-ordinate research and monitoring on

tiger, co-predators, prey, habitat, related ecological

and socio-economic parameters and their evaluation;

(g) ensure that the tiger reserves and areas linking

one protected area or tiger reserve with another

protected area or tiger reserve are not diverted for

ecologically unsustainable uses, except in public

interest and with the approval of the National

Board for Wild Life and on the advice of the Tiger

Conservation Authority;

(h) facilitate and support the tiger reserve management

in the State for biodiversity conservation initiatives

through eco-development and people’s participation

as per approved management plans and to support

similar initiatives in adjoining areas consistent with

the Central and State laws;

(i) ensure critical support including scientific, information

technology and legal support for better implementation

of the tiger conservation plan;

(j) facilitate ongoing capacity building programme for skill

development of officers and staff of tiger reserves; and

(k) perform such other functions as may be necessary

to carry out the purposes of this Act with regard to

conservation of tigers and their habitat.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 221

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(2) The Tiger Conservation Authority may, in the exercise

of its powers and performance of its functions under this

chapter, issue directions in writing to any person, officer

or authority for the protection of tiger or tiger reserves and

such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply

with the directions :

Provided that no such direction shall interfere with or affect

the rights of local people particularly the Scheduled Tribes.”

28. Section 38V of the WLP Act deals with “Tiger Conservation Plan”,

which reads thus :

“38V. Tiger Conservation Plan.—(1) The State Government

shall, on the recommendations of the Tiger Conservation

Authority, notify an area as a tiger reserve.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32

and clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of this Act shall, as

far as may be, apply in relation to a tiger reserve as they

apply in relation to a sanctuary.

(3) The State Government shall prepare a Tiger Conservation

Plan including staff development and deployment plan for

the proper management of each area referred to in subsection (1), so as to ensure—

(a) protection of tiger reserve and providing site specific

habitat inputs for a viable population of tigers, copredators and prey animals without distorting the

natural prey-predator ecological cycle in the habitat;

(b) ecologically compatible land uses in the tiger

reserves and areas linking one protected area or tiger

reserve with another for addressing the livelihood

concerns of local people, so as to provide dispersal

habitats and corridor for spill over population of wild

animals from the designated core areas of tiger

reserves or from tiger breeding habitats within other

protected areas;

(c) the forestry operations of regular forest divisions and

those adjoining tiger reserves are not incompatible

with the needs of tiger conservation.

222 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(4) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, the State

Government shall, while preparing a Tiger Conservation

Plan, ensure the agricultural, livelihood, developmental

and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing

forests or a tiger reserve.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the

expression “tiger reserve” includes,—

(i) core or critical tiger habitat areas of National Parks

and sanctuaries, where it has been established,

on the basis of scientific and objective criteria, that

such areas are required to be kept as inviolate for

the purposes of tiger conservation, without affecting

the rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other

forest dwellers, and notified as such by the State

Government in consultation with an Expert Committee

constituted for the purpose;

(ii) buffer or peripheral area consisting of the area

peripheral to critical tiger habitat or core area,

identified and established in accordance with the

provisions contained in Explanation (i) above, where

a lesser degree of habitat protection is required to

ensure the integrity of the critical tiger habitat with

adequate dispersal for tiger species, and which

aim at promoting co-existence between wildlife and

human activity with due recognition of the livelihood,

developmental, social and cultural rights of the

local people, wherein the limits of such areas are

determined on the basis of scientific and objective

criteria in consultation with the concerned Gram

Sabha and an Expert Committee constituted for the

purpose.

(5) Save as for voluntary relocation on mutually agreed

terms and conditions, provided that such terms and

conditions satisfy the requirements laid down in this subsection, no Scheduled Tribes or other forest dwellers shall

be resettled or have their rights adversely affected for the

purpose of creating inviolate areas for tiger conservation

unless—

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 223

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(i) the process of recognition and determination of

rights and acquisition of land or forest rights of the

Scheduled Tribes and such other forest dwelling

persons is complete;

(ii) the concerned agencies of the State Government, in

exercise of their powers under this Act, establishes

with the consent of the Scheduled Tribes and such

other forest dwellers in the area, and in consultation

with an ecological and social scientist familiar with the

area, that the activities of the Scheduled Tribes and

other forest dwellers or the impact of their presence

upon wild animals is sufficient to cause irreversible

damage and shall threaten the existence of tigers

and their habitat;

(iii) the State Government, after obtaining the consent

of the Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers

inhabiting the area, and in consultation with an

independent ecological and social scientist familiar

with the area, has come to a conclusion that

other reasonable options of co-existence, are not

available;

(iv) resettlement or alternative package has been prepared

providing for livelihood for the affected individuals and

communities and fulfils the requirements given in the

National Relief and Rehabilitation Policy;

(v) the informed consent of the Gram Sabha concerned,

and of the persons affected, to the resettlement

programme has been obtained;

(vi) the facilities and land allocation at the resettlement

location are provided under the said programme,

otherwise their existing rights shall not be interfered

with.”

29. Section 38W of the WLP Act deals with “Alteration and de-notification

of tiger reserves”, which reads thus :

“38W. Alteration and de-notification of tiger reserves.—

(1) No alteration in the boundaries of a tiger reserve 

224 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

shall be made except on a recommendation of the Tiger

Conservation Authority and the approval of the National

Board for Wild Life.

(2) No State Government shall de-notify a tiger reserve,

except in public interest with the approval of the Tiger

Conservation Authority and the National Board for Wild

Life.”

30. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 38XA of the WLP Act,

which reads thus :

“38-XA. Provisions of Chapter to be in addition to

provisions relating to sanctuaries and National

Parks.—The provisions contained in this Chapter shall

be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions

relating to sanctuaries and National Parks (whether

included and declared, or are in the process of being so

declared) included in a tiger reserve under this Act.”

31. A perusal of the entire scheme of the WLP Act read with the Statement

of objects and reasons would clearly reveal that the entire emphasis

is on “conservation, protection and management of the wildlife”.

The WLP Act also provides for the matters connected therewith or

ancillary or incidental thereto for the conservation, protection and

management of wildlife. It also emphasizes on ensuring the ecological

and environmental security of the country.

32. A perusal of the aforementioned provisions of the WLP Act would

reveal that various measures have been provided under the said

Act for the protection of protected areas. No doubt that the definition

of “protected area” as defined under sub-section (24A) of Section

2 of the WLP Act only includes a National Park, a sanctuary, a

conservation reserve, or a community reserve, which are notified

under Sections 18, 35, 36A and 36C of the WLP Act. However, the

harmonious construction of the various provisions of the WLP Act

would reveal that the legislature intended the “Tiger Reserves” to

be kept at a higher pedestal than a sanctuary, a National Park, a

conservation reserve, or a community reserve.

33. As discussed hereinabove, the declaration of sanctuary is as provided

under Section 18 of the WLP Act. We have already reproduced

Section 18 hereinabove. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 225

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

34. The Chief Wild Life Warden has been entrusted with the functions and

duties to control, manage, and protect all sanctuaries in accordance

with such management plans for the sanctuary as approved by him

as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government. Under

clause (a) of Section 33 of the WLP Act; though construction of roads,

bridges, buildings, fences or barrier gates, and such other works as

he may consider necessary for sanctuary is permissible, the proviso

thereto specifically prohibits the construction of tourist lodges including

Government lodges for commercial purposes. It further prohibits

the construction of hotels, zoos and safari parks inside a sanctuary

except with the prior approval of the National Board. Clause (b)

thereof requires the Chief Wild Life Warden to take such steps as

would ensure the security of wild animals in the sanctuary and the

preservation of the sanctuary and wild animals therein. He is also

authorized to take such measures, in the interests of wildlife, as he

may consider necessary for the improvement of any habitat. He is

also authorized to regulate, control, or prohibit, in keeping with the

interests of wildlife, the grazing or movement of livestock.

35. Section 35 of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration of National Parks”.

In view of sub-section (8) thereof, the provisions which are applicable

under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 33 of the WLP Act to the

‘sanctuary’ would also be applicable to a ‘National Park’.

36. Section 36A of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration and management

of a conservation reserve”. In view of sub-section (2) thereof, the

provisions under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of the WLP Act,

which are applicable to a ‘sanctuary’ shall, as far as may be, apply

also in relation to a ‘conservation reserve’.

37. Section 36C of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration and management

of community reserve”. In view of sub-section (2) thereof, the

provisions under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of the WLP Act,

which are applicable to a ‘sanctuary’ shall, as far as may be, apply

also in relation to a ‘community reserve’.

38. Section 38-O deals with “Powers and Functions of Tiger Conservation

Authority”. Clause (a) thereof provides for approval of the TCP

prepared by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section

38V of the WLP Act. Under clause (b), it has to evaluate and assess

various aspects of sustainable ecology and disallow any ecologically

unsustainable land use such as setting up of mining, industry, and 

226 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

other projects within the tiger reserves. Under clause (c), it is required

to lay down normative standards for tourism activities and guidelines

for ‘Project Tiger’ from time to time for tiger conservation in the buffer

and core area of tiger reserves and ensure their due compliance.

Under clause (d), it has to provide for management focus and

measures for addressing conflicts of men and wild animals and to

emphasize on co-existence in forest areas outside the National Parks,

sanctuaries, or tiger reserves in the working plan code. Under clause

(e), it has to provide information on protection measures including

future conservation plans, estimation of the population of tigers and

its natural prey species, status of habitats, diseases surveillance,

mortality surveys, patrolling, reports on untoward happenings, and

such any other management aspects as it may deem fit including

future plans for conservation. Under clause (f), the Tiger Conservation

Authority is required to approve, co-ordinate research and monitor

on tigers, co-predators, prey, habitats, related ecological and socioeconomic parameters, and their evaluation. Under clause (g), it is

required to ensure that the tiger reserves and areas linking one

protected area or tiger reserve with another protected area or tiger

reserve are not diverted for ecologically unsustainable uses, except

in public interest and that too, with the approval of the National

Board for Wild Life and on the advice of the Tiger Conservation

Authority. Under clause (h), it is required to facilitate and support the

tiger reserve management in the State for biodiversity conservation

initiatives through eco-development and people’s participation as

per approved management plans and to support similar initiatives

in adjoining areas consistent with the Central and State laws. Under

clause (i), it is required to ensure critical support including scientific,

information technology, and legal support for better implementation

of the TCP. Under clause (j), it is required to facilitate an ongoing

capacity building programme for the skill development of officers and

staff of tiger reserves. Under clause (k), it is required to perform such

other functions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the

WLP Act with regard to the conservation of tigers and their habitat.

39. The importance given to the Tiger Conservation Authority can be seen

in sub-section (2) of Section 38-O of the WLP Act, which empowers

it to issue directions in writing to any person, officer or authority for

the protection of tiger or tiger reserves and such person, officer or

authority are bound to comply with the directions. No doubt that the 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 227

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

proviso thereto provides that no such direction shall interfere with or

affect the rights of local people, particularly the Scheduled Tribes.

40. Section 38V of the WLP Act deals with the notification of an area

as a tiger reserve and preparation of the “TCP”. Under sub-section

(1) thereof, the State Government is required to notify an area as a

tiger reserve, on such recommendations being made by the Tiger

Conservation Authority. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that the

provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub-sections (2), (3) and

(4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32 and clauses (b) and (c) of Section

33 of the said Act shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a tiger

reserve as they apply in relation to a sanctuary.

41. Under sub-section (3) of Section 38V, the State Government is required

to prepare a TCP including staff development and deployment plan for

the proper management of each area referred to in sub-section (1),

so as to ensure protection of tiger reserve and providing site specific

habitat inputs for a viable population of tigers, co-predators and prey

animals without distorting the natural prey-predator ecological cycle

in the habitat. It is also required to ensure ecologically compatible

land uses in the tiger reserves and areas linking one protected area

or tiger reserve with another for addressing the livelihood concerns

of local people, so as to provide dispersal habitats and corridor for

spill over population of wild animals from the designated core areas

of tiger reserves or from tiger breeding habitats within other protected

areas. It is also required to ensure that the forestry operations of

regular forest divisions and those adjoining the tiger reserves are

not incompatible with the needs of tiger conservation.

42. Under sub-section (4) of Section 38V, the State Government, while

preparing a TCP, is also required to ensure the agricultural, livelihood,

developmental and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing

forests or a tiger reserve. Explanation thereto provides that the ‘tiger

reserve’ shall consist of two areas. The first area shall be core or

critical tiger habitat areas of National Parks and sanctuaries; which,

on the basis of scientific and objective criteria, are required to be kept

as inviolate for the purposes of tiger conservation, without affecting

the rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other forest dwellers, and

notified as such by the State Government in consultation with an

Expert Committee constituted for the said purpose. The second area,

i.e., the buffer or peripheral area, shall consist of the area peripheral 

228 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

to critical tiger habitat or core area, identified and established in

accordance with the provisions contained in Explanation (i). In such

area, a lesser degree of habitat protection is required to ensure the

integrity of the critical tiger habitat with adequate dispersal for tiger

species. The creation of the buffer zone is aimed at promoting coexistence between wildlife and human activity with due recognition

of the livelihood, developmental, social and cultural rights of the

local people, wherein the limits of such areas are determined on

the basis of scientific and objective criteria in consultation with the

concerned Gram Sabha and an Expert Committee constituted for

the said purpose.

43. Sub-section (5) of Section 38V deals with resettlement etc. of the

Scheduled Tribes and, therefore, it may not be necessary for us to

go into the provisions of sub-section (5).

44. Section 38W of the WLP Act deals with alteration and de-notification

of tiger reserves. It provides that no alteration in the boundaries of

a tiger reserve shall be made except on a recommendation of the

Tiger Conservation Authority and the approval of the National Board

for Wild Life. Sub-Section (2) thereof prohibits the State Government

from de-notifying a tiger reserve, except in public interest with the

approval of the Tiger Conservation Authority and the National Board

for Wild Life.

45. Section 38XA of the WLP Act which was inserted by the Wild Life

(Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 (No. 18 of 2022) makes the

legislative intent amply clear. It provides that, the provisions contained

in the said Chapter shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of

the provisions relating to sanctuaries and National Parks (whether

included and declared, or are in the process of being so declared)

included in a tiger reserve under this Act.

46. It could thus be seen that, the entire emphasis of the WLP Act is on

the conservation, protection, and management of wildlife. Various

provisions contained in the WLP Act, discussed hereinabove,

emphasize on providing measures for the conservation, protection

and management of wildlife. The provisions contained in Chapter

IVA lay a specific emphasis on the protection of tigers and other

habitats in the tiger reserve. The provisions contained therein are

in addition to the provisions contained for sanctuaries and National

Parks. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 229

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

IV. GUIDELINES ISSUED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES

47. In light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it will also be necessary

to refer to certain guidelines issued by various authorities.

48. The NTCA published guidelines for preparation of TCP in 2007.

The said guidelines provide for what should be the approach for

preparation of TCP. It will be relevant to refer to clause 3.1 thereof,

which reads thus :

“3.1 Consolidating and strengthening of ‘source’

populations of tiger in tiger reserves and protected

areas

The management interventions would involve :

1. Protection, anti-poaching activities and networking

2. Strengthening of infrastructure within Tiger Reserves

3. Habitat improvement including water development

4. Rehabilitation package for traditional hunting tribes living

around tiger reserves

5. Staff development and capacity building

6. Delineating inviolate spaces for wildlife and relocation of

villagers from crucial habitats in Tiger Reserves within a

timeframe (five years) and settlement of rights

7. Safeguarding tiger habitats from ecologically unsustainable

development”

49. It will also be relevant to refer to clause 3.2 thereof, which reads thus :

“3.2 Managing ‘source-sink’ dynamics by restoring

habitat connectivity to facilitate dispersing tigers to

repopulate the core areas

The management interventions would involve :

1. Co-existence agenda in buffer/fringe areas (landscape

approach/sectoral integration) with ecologically sustainable

development programme for providing livelihood options

to local people, with a view to reduce their resource

dependency on the core. The strategy would involve

reciprocal commitments with the local community on a 

230 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

quid-pro-quo basis to protect forests and wildlife, based

on village level, participatory planning and implementation

through ecodevelopment committees (EDC).

2. Addressing man-animal conflict issues (ensuring uniform,

timely compensation for human injuries and deaths due

to wild animals, livestock depredation by carnivores, crop

depredation by wild ungulates).

3. Mainstreaming wildlife concerns in the buffer landscape

by targeting the various production sectors in the area,

which directly or incidentally affect wildlife conservation,

through ‘Tiger Conservation Foundation’, as provided in

the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006.

4. Addressing tiger bearing forests and fostering corridor

conservation through restorative strategy in respective

working plans of forest divisions, involving local

communities, to arrest fragmentation of habitats.

5. Ensuring safeguards/retrofitting measures in the area in

the interest of wildlife conservation.”

50. The guidelines also deal with various production sectors in the

buffer zone which require mainstreaming of wildlife concerns in

these sectors like :

"(a) Forestry (D)

(b) Agriculture (D)

(c) Integrated Development (ecodevelopment, development through

District Administration) (D)

(d) Tourism (D)

(e) Fisheries (D)

(f) Tea/Coffee Estates (I)

(g) Road / Rail transport (D)

(h) Industry (D)

(i) Mining (I)

(j) Thermal power plants (I)

(k) Irrigation projects (D) 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 231

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(l) Temple tourism (I)

(m) Communication projects (D)”

51. Clause 6 of the said guidelines deals with importance of a buffer

zone vis-à-vis the tiger land tenure dynamics, which reads thus :

“6. Importance of a buffer zone vis-à-vis the tiger land

tenure dynamics

6.1 Tiger is a territorial animal, which advertises its

presence in an area and maintains a territory. It is a

well known fact that partial overlaps of resident male

territories in an area do occur. However, the degree

of overlap increases lethal internecine combats.

Several female territories do occur in an overlapping

manner within the territory of a male tiger. The tiger

land tenure dynamics ensures presence of prime

adults in a habitat which act as source populations,

periodically replacing old males by young adults from

nearby forest areas (Plate 2).

6.2 The ongoing study and analysis of available research

data on tiger ecology indicate, that the minimum

population of tigresses in breeding age, which are

needed to maintain a viable population of 80-100 tigers

(in and around core areas) require an inviolate space

of 800 -1000 sq km (see Annexure I). Tiger being

an “umbrella species”, this will also ensure viable

populations of other wild animals (co-predators, prey)

and forest, thereby ensuring the ecological viability of

the entire area / habitat. Therefore, buffer areas with

forest connectivity are imperative for tiger dynamics,

since such areas foster sub adults, young adults,

transients and old members of the population. The

young adults periodically replace the resident ageing

males and females from the source population area.

6.3 The buffer area, absorbs the “shock” of poaching

pressure on populations of tiger and other wild

animals. In case of severe habitat depletion in buffer

areas, the source population would get targeted and

eventually decimate. 

232 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Plate 2 : Tiger Land Tenure Dynamics. Minimum

population of tigers in breeding age needed for

maintaining a viable population (80-100 tigers),

which require an inviolate space of 800-1000 square

kilometers.”

52. Clause 8 of the said guidelines deals with the importance of the

corridors, which reads thus :

“8. Value of Corridors

8.1 Isolated populations of wild animals face the

risk of extinction owing to insularization. Habitat

fragmentation adversely affects wildlife due to

decreased opportunity available for wild animal

movement from different habitats. This in turn

prevents gene flow in the landscape. The equilibrium

theory of island biogeography predicts greater species

richness in large wildlife areas or in smaller areas

connected by habitat corridors owing to increased

movements of wild animals. Such connecting

habitats, apart from facilitating animal movements

also act as refuge for spill over populations from the

core areas. They may also act as smaller “source” by

facilitating breeding and movement of native wildlife

populations to colonize adjoining habitats. Natural 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 233

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

linear features like rivers or mountain ranges may

act as boundaries for wildlife populations. However,

disturbance of corridors on account of human

interventions (highways, canals, industries, roads,

railway tracks, transmission lines) is deleterious to

wildlife.”

Plate 3 : Tiger Land Tenure Dynamics

8.2 “Source” populations are those which produce a

surplus of animals which are potential colonizers.

On the other hand, “Sinks” are those populations in

which deaths exceed births, and their persistence

depends on regular influx of immigrants.

8.3 Patches of suitable habitats in the landscape may

support wildlife populations (local populations),

which may be separated from one another on

account of various disturbance factors. Collectively,

such patches of local populations are known as

“regional populations”. This general situation of sub

divided populations interacting with one another

in a landscape to supplement new genes through

movement, is known as a “meta population”. In the

context of tiger land tenure dynamics, the corebuffer areas conform to the “island-mainland” or

“coresatellite” form of meta population model. The

core area of a tiger reserve provides a source of

colonizers for the surrounding local populations of

different sizes and varying degrees of isolation. The 

234 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

core area may not readily experience extinction owing

to the protection inputs for maintaining its inviolate

nature. However, the surrounding isolated patches

in the buffer area may suffer from local extinction if

wildlife concerns are not mainstreamed in the area.

Therefore, a meta population management approach

is required for the buffer zone as well as corridors

to facilitate :

(a) Supplementing declining local tiger populations

(b) Facilitating re-colonization in habitat patches through

restorative management

(c) Providing opportunity to tiger for colonizing new

areas through patches of habitats (stepping stones)

between isolated populations (Plate 4).

Plate 4 : Meta population dynamics. Corridors become

crucial for maintaining viability of Population 2 as by

itself it does not have the habitat to sustain greater

than 20 breeding tigers.”

53. In 2012, the NTCA issued Guidelines for Normative Standards for

Tourisms Activities and for Project Tiger for tiger conservation in the

buffer and core areas of the tiger reserves which were notified vide

Gazette Notification dated 15th October 2012 (hereinafter referred

to as “the 2012 Guidelines”)

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 235

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

54. Clause 16.2 of the 2012 Guidelines deals with strengthening of

infrastructure within the tiger reserve, which reads thus :

“16.2. Strengthening of infrastructure within Tiger

Reserves (ongoing) (non recurring for new civil works

and recurring for maintenance).

The following activities, inter alia, would form part of

reinforcing the infrastructure of tiger reserves (including

support to new tiger reserves) :

(i) Civil Works (staff quarters, family hostels, office

improvement, patrolling camp, house keeping buildings,

museum, culverts).

(ii) Maintenance, creation and upgradation of road network.

(iii) Maintenance and creation of wireless tower.

(iv) Maintenance and creation of fire watch tower.

(v) Maintenance and creation of bridges, dams, anicuts.

(vi) Maintenance, creation of firelines and firebreaks.

(vii) Maintenance and creation of earthen ponds.

(viii) Procurement and maintenance of vehicles (Gypsy, Jeep,

Truck, Tractor etc.).

(ix) Habitat improvement works.

(x) Procurement of hardware, software/Geographical

Information System (GIS).

(xi) Procurement of compass, range finder, Global Positioning

System (GPS), camera traps.

(xii) Procurement of satellite imageries for management planning.

(xiii) Map digitization facility for management planning.

(xiv) Monitoring system for Tigers’ Intensive Protection and

Ecological Status (M-STrIPES) monitoring.

(xv) E-surveillance.”

55. Clause 16.21 of the 2012 Guidelines deals with establishment of

Tiger Safari, interpretation and awareness centres in buffer and

fringe areas, which reads thus : 

236 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“16.21 Establishment of Tiger Safari, interpretation and

awareness centres under the existing component of

‘co-existence agenda in buffer and fringe areas’, and

management of such centres through the respective

Panchayati Raj Institutions (creation - Non-Recurring;

maintenance - Recurring).

The Tiger Safaris may be established in the buffer areas

of tiger reserves which experience immense tourist

influx in the core/critical tiger habitat for viewing tiger.

The interpretation and awareness centres would also be

supported in such buffer areas to foster awareness for

eliciting public support. The management of such centres

would be through the respective Panchayati Raj (PR)

institutions.”

56. In 2016, the NTCA notified the Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris

in Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves (hereinafter referred

to as “2016 Guidelines”). These guidelines provide for the basic

criteria, and procedure required to be followed in the buffer and

fringe areas of tiger reserves for dealing with the establishment,

management, and administration of the ‘Tiger Safaris’ after following

the due procedure prescribed under the law and the 2012 Guidelines.

Clause 8 thereof provides that, tourism activities in the tiger reserves

are regulated by the normative guidelines on tourism issued by the

NTCA as well as by the prescriptions on eco-tourism as contained in

the TCPs of the tiger reserves. It provides that the last three years’

average visitation will be taken into consideration while determining

the need for a tiger safari. It provides that, if the carrying capacity

is 100% utilized, then a proposal for establishing a tiger safari can

be placed before the NTCA.

57. Clause 9 of the 2016 guidelines is very important. It provides that

no tiger shall be obtained from the zoo exhibit. Wild tigers that are

from the same landscape as that of the area where the tiger safari

is established, falling under the categories of (a) injured tigers (after

suitable treatment); (b) conflict tigers; and (c) orphaned tiger cubs

which are unfit for re-wilding and release into the wild shall be

selected. It further provides that no visibly injured or incapacitated

tiger shall be put on the safari. It further provides that recovered/

treated animals shall be put on display only after assessment by the 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 237

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

NTCA. Further, no healthy wild tiger or any other animal shall be

sourced from the wild as per provisions of the National Zoo Policy.

58. Clause 10 of the 2016 guidelines further provides that the location of

the tiger safari shall be identified preferably in the buffer (not falling

in notified National Parks and/or Wildlife Sanctuary)/peripheral area

of the tiger reserve based on the recommendations of a committee

comprising of members from the NTCA, CZA, Forest Department

of State concerned, an experienced tiger biologist/scientist/

conservationist and a representative, nominated by the Chief Wildlife

Warden of the concerned State. It also provides that tiger dispersal

routes shall be avoided in all circumstances. The area of a Safari

Park should be as large as possible; however, the minimum area of

a tiger safari should be 40 hectares, extendable as per requirements.

The topography for the safari should be undulating and well- drained,

without steep slopes. The vegetation maintained in the Safari Park

should be indigenous. The density of flora should be regulated

according to needs, and to provide a naturalistic effect. It should

provide shelters and withdrawal areas for animals. It provides that

the entire safari area should be surrounded by a suitable peripheral

chain link fence. The said chain link fence should be of a minimum

height of 5 meters in case of large carnivores like tigers with a

suitable both way –overhang at the top or as prescribed by the CZA

from time to time. It also provides that a buffer zone (strip) of about

5 meters width be provided around the fenced area. It also provides

for the erection of a watch tower of about 5 meters in height. It also

provides for the sensitization of visitors at ‘Visitor Centres’. It provides

that visitors shall enter the park in eco-friendly vehicles which run

on solar and/or battery power only. There are various other details

with regard to layout of roads, hours of the day during which vehicles

should be permitted, the equipment to be provided, veterinary care,

education. It also provides for the frequency of vehicles entering the

Safari Park. It further restricts taking the vehicles near the animals

and to maintain a distance of at least 10 meters. It also provides for

waste disposal, monitoring, and supervision.

59. Clause 14 of the 2016 guidelines provides for management of the

tiger safari based on prescriptions of a Master Plan which shall be

formulated as per guidelines of the CZA and duly approved by the said

Authority. It further provides that care should be taken to harmonize

the Master Plan with prescriptions of the TCP of the area concerned. 

238 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

60. The NTCA again in 2019 notified guidelines to establish tiger safaris

in buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves. Most of the guidelines

are similar to those contained in the 2016 guidelines. In some areas,

elaborate details have been provided. The only substantial distinction

is about clause 9, which reads thus :

“9. Selection of Animal : The selection of the animal shall

be done in conformity of section 38I of Wildlife (Protection)

Act, 1972 after due approval of the Central Zoo Authority

(CZA).”

61. It will further be relevant to note that the NTCA has notified the

Standard Operating Procedure to deal with orphaned, abandoned

tiger cubs and old/injured tigers in wild (hereinafter referred to as

“SOP”). The said SOP provides detailed procedures as to what are

the causes and circumstances leading to orphaned/abandoned tiger

cubs and old/injured tigers in the wild. It provides a procedure for

establishing the identity of the tigresses/cub(s)/old/injured/sick tigers

by comparing camera trap photographs with the National Repository

of Camera Trap Photographs of Tigers. It provides for the collection

of recent cattle/livestock depredation or human injury/fatal encounter

data, if any, in the area. It further deals with how such cubs and

tigers are to be dealt with.

62. The said SOP provides that, rearing of the tiger cubs should be in the

in situ enclosure for wilding/re-wilding towards subsequent release in

the wild. It provides a detailed procedure as to how the in situ enclosure

should be constructed in order to avoid the ‘Pavlovian’ conditioning of

tiger cubs in the in situ enclosure and the release of natural prey animals

within the tiger enclosure with minimum sound. It also provides for

maintaining of a record of the kills made by the tiger cubs. It provides that

the tiger cubs should be reared in the in situ enclosure for a minimum

of two years, and each cub should have a successful kill record of

at least 50 prey animals. It provides that the tiger cubs which have a

successful kill record may be released in the wild in consultation with

the NTCA after radio collaring, to a suitable, productive habitat within

the same landscape, while keeping in mind the land tenure dynamics

of tigers or the presence of human settlements in the new area. The

SOP also deals with ‘Hard’ release of tiger cubs in the wild.

63. The SOP also provides for the rehabilitation of the sick/injured/

old tigers in zoos. A perusal of the SOP would reveal that only in 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 239

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

extreme situations, where an old/injured tiger may create a humantiger interface problem leading to livestock/human depredation; such

tigers should be rehabilitated in a recognized zoo.

64. The SOP also, in detail, has provisions with regard to the design of

cages/transportation protocol; design and related details of the in

situ enclosure; housekeeping details for the rearing of abandoned/

orphaned newborn tiger cubs; and safeguards for the field staff.

65. It is further relevant to note that, the Ministry of Environment and

Forests, Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife, Union of

India has issued a Resolution dated 7th December 1988, thereby

providing for the National Forest Policy, 1988. Para 4.5 of the said

Policy deals with ‘Wildlife Conservation’, which reads thus :

“4.5 Wildlife Conservation

Forest Management should take special care of the needs

of wildlife conservation, and forest management plans

should include prescriptions for this purpose. It is specially

essential to provide for “corridors” linking the protected area

in order to maintain genetic continuity between artificially

separated sub-sections of migrant wildlife.”

66. It is further relevant to note that the National Wildlife Action Plan,

2017-2031 also emphasizes on the concept of protection of the

wildlife as a whole, beyond protected areas to protect the integrity

of the Tiger Reserve. The relevant portion of the Plan is reproduced

herein below :

“Landscape Level Approach for Wildlife Conservation

Overview and Objectives1. It is increasingly recognized that wildlife conservation

has to go beyond Protected Areas (PAs) to the

larger landscapes in which these are embedded.

A landscape is defined as ‘a large tract of land

constituted by a mosaic of interacting land uses

with people and the impacts of their activities as

the cornerstone of its management.’ Landscape

allows ecosystem level conservation actions at

the existing internal smaller nested spatial scales

of management/ administration such as PAs and 

240 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

territorial forest divisions as well as larger units to

achieve conservation goals at the largest spatial

scale possible in practical terms.

2. Landscape level conservation of species must be

seen as maintaining or enhancing genetic exchanges

between metapopulations and significantly improving

the prospects of their long term persistence.

Therefore, the plans must address species loss in

the short-term and the reasons for such depletions

in the long run.

xxx      xxx      xxx

6. Further, conservation of wildlife can not be

seen isolated from the whole development of

the region or landscape. Local governance

systems, local land use patterns and land use

systems, ecosystem-interfaces and socioeconomic circumstances are mutually intertwined

at the landscape level. Therefore, a mosaic

approach to landscape planning needs to be

developed in partnership with other agencies

and stakeholders.”

[emphasis supplied]

67. It is thus amply clear that the National Wild Life Action Plan also

recognizes the necessity of wildlife conservation beyond the

protected areas. It states that the landscape allows ecosystem

level conservation actions at the existing internal smaller nested

spatial scales of management/administration such as protected

areas and territorial forest divisions as well as larger units to

achieve conservation goals at the largest spatial scale possible

in practical terms. It further states that the conservation of wildlife

cannot be seen to be isolated from the whole development of the

region or landscape. It states that the local governance systems,

local land use patterns and land use systems, ecosystem-interfaces

and socio-economic circumstances are mutually intertwined at the

landscape level. It emphasizes that a mosaic approach to landscape

planning needs to be developed in partnership with other agencies

and stakeholders. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 241

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

V. CONSIDERATION

68. This Court had an occasion to consider an issue with regard to

environmental justice in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad

v. Union of India and others2

, wherein this Court held thus :

“17. Environmental justice could be achieved only if

we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric

to ecocentric. Many of our principles like sustainable

development, polluter-pays principle, intergenerational

equity have their roots in anthropocentric principles.

Anthropocentrism is always human interest focussed and

that non-human has only instrumental value to humans.

In other words, humans take precedence and human

responsibilities to non-human based benefits to humans.

Ecocentrism is nature-centred where humans are part of

nature and non-humans have intrinsic value. In other words,

human interest does not take automatic precedence and

humans have obligations to non-humans independently of

human interest. Ecocentrism is therefore life-centred,

nature-centred where nature includes both humans and

non-humans. The National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2012

and the Centrally Sponsored Integrated Development of

Wildlife Habitats Scheme, 2009 are centred on the principle

of ecocentrism.”

[emphasis supplied]

69. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that, to achieve

environmental justice, the approach of anthropocentrism i.e. human

interest focused and that non-human has only instrumental value to

humans will have to be avoided. It has been held that ecocentrism i.e.

nature centered where humans are a part of nature and non-humans

have intrinsic value will have to be adopted. It has been held that

human interest does not take automatic precedence and humans

have obligations to non-humans independently of human interest. It

has been held that the National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2012 and

the Centrally Sponsored Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats

Scheme, 2009 are centred on the principle of ecocentrism.

2 [2012] 3 SCR 460 : (2012) 3 SCC 277 : 2012 INSC 81

242 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

70. This Court again in the case of Centre for Environmental Law,

World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India and others3

, following

the earlier judgments, observed thus :

“44. The scope of the Centrally-sponsored scheme was

examined in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union

of India [(2012) 3 SCC 277] (Wild Buffalo case) and

this Court directed implementation of that scheme in

the State of Chhattisgarh. The Centrally-sponsored

scheme, as already indicated, 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. NWAP,

2002-2016 and the Centrally-sponsored scheme, 2009

relating to integrated development of wildlife habitats

are schemes which have statutory status and as

held in Lafarge case [Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd.

v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338] and have to be

implemented in their letter and spirit. While giving

effect to the various provisions of the Wildlife (Protection)

Act, the Centrally-sponsored scheme, 2009, the NWAP,

2002-2016 our approach should be ecocentric and not

anthropocentric.”

[emphasis supplied]

71. It could thus be seen that, this Court held that the National Wildlife

Action Plan (NWAP), 2002-2016, and the Centrally-sponsored

scheme, 2009 related to the integrated development of wildlife

habitats are schemes that have a statutory status, and will have to

be implemented in letter and spirit.

72. It can further be seen that, this Court has emphasized on the

importance of sustainable development, i.e., balancing the rights of

the citizens and the concern for the environmental and ecological

issues.

73. In this respect, it will be appropriate to refer to Articles 48-A and

51-A(g) of the Constitution, which read thus :

3 [2013] 6 SCR 757 : (2013) 8 SCC 234 : 2013 INSC 254

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 243

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

“48-A. Protection and improvement of environment

and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.—The State

shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment

and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.

***

51-A. Fundamental duties.—It shall be the duty of every

citizen of India—

***

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including

forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion

for living creatures;”

74. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others4

,

this Court observed thus :

“10. The traditional concept that development and ecology

are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable.

“Sustainable Development” is the answer. In the international

sphere, “Sustainable Development” as a concept came to

be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of

1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite

shape by the World Commission on Environment and

Development in its report called “Our Common Future”.

The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister

of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland and as such the report

is popularly known as “Brundtland Report”. In 1991 the

World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment

Programme and Worldwide Fund for Nature, jointly came

out with a document called “Caring for the Earth” which is

a strategy for sustainable living. Finally, came the Earth

Summit held in June 1992 at Rio which saw the largest

gathering of world leaders ever in history—deliberating and

chalking out a blueprint for the survival of the planet. Among

the tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was the

signing of two conventions, one on biological diversity

and another on climate change. These conventions were

4 [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647 : 1996 INSC 952

244 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

signed by 153 nations. The delegates also approved

by consensus three non-binding documents, namely, a

Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles

on environmental policy and development initiatives and

Agenda 21, a programme of action into the next century

in areas like poverty, population and pollution. During

the two decades from Stockholm to Rio “Sustainable

Development” has come to be accepted as a viable concept

to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life

while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting

ecosystems. “Sustainable Development” as defined by the

Brundtland Report means “Development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the ability of

the future generations to meet their own needs”. We have

no hesitation in holding that “Sustainable Development” as

a balancing concept between ecology and development

has been accepted as a part of the customary international

law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by

the international law jurists.

***

16. The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a

person’s right to fresh air, clean water and pollution-free

environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable

common law right of clean environment. It would be useful

to quote a paragraph from Blackstone’s commentaries

on the Laws of England (Commentaries on the Laws of

England of Sir William Blackstone) Vol. III, Fourth Edn.

published in 1876. Chapter XIII, “Of Nuisance” depicts the

law on the subject in the following words :

‘Also, if a person keeps his hogs, or other noisome animals,

or allows filth to accumulate on his premises, so near the

house of another, that the stench incommodes him and

makes the air unwholesome, this is an injurious nuisance,

as it tends to deprive him of the use and benefit of his house.

A like injury is, if one’s neighbour sets up and exercises

any offensive trade; as a tanner’s, a tallow-chandler’s, or

the like; for though these are lawful and necessary trades,

yet they should be exercised in remote places; for the rule 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 245

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

is, “sic utere tuo, ut alienum non leadas”; this therefore

is an actionable nuisance. And on a similar principle a

constant ringing of bells in one’s immediate neighbourhood

may be a nuisance.

… With regard to other corporeal hereditaments; it

is a nuisance to stop or divert water that used to run

to another’s meadow or mill; to corrupt or poison a

watercourse, by erecting a dye-house or a lime-pit, for the

use of trade, in the upper part of the stream; to pollute a

pond, from which another is entitled to water his cattle;

to obstruct a drain; or in short to do any act in common

property, that in its consequences must necessarily tend

to the prejudice of one’s neighbour. So closely does the

law of England enforce that excellent rule of gospelmorality, of “doing to others, as we would they should

do unto ourselves”.’ ””

75. Further in the case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of

A.P. and others5

, this Court observed thus :

“84. The world has reached a level of growth in the 21st

century as never before envisaged. While the crisis of

economic growth is still on, the key question which often

arises and the courts are asked to adjudicate upon is

whether economic growth can supersede the concern

for environmental protection and whether sustainable

development which can be achieved only by way of

protecting the environment and conserving the natural

resources for the benefit of humanity and future generations

could be ignored in the garb of economic growth or

compelling human necessity. The growth and development

process are terms without any content, without an inkling as

to the substance of their end results. This inevitably leads

us to the conception of growth and development, which

sustains from one generation to the next in order to secure

“our common future”. In pursuit of development, focus

has to be on sustainability of development and policies

5 [2006] 2 SCR 419 : (2006) 3 SCC 549 : 2006 INSC 101

246 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

towards that end have to be earnestly formulated and

sincerely observed. As Prof. Weiss puts it, “conservation,

however, always takes a back seat in times of economic

stress”. It is now an accepted social principle that all

human beings have a fundamental right to a healthy

environment, commensurate with their well-being, coupled

with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are

conserved and preserved in such a way that present as

well as the future generations are aware of them equally.”

76. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and

others6

, this Court observed thus :

“41. With rapid industrialisation taking place, there is an

increasing threat to the maintenance of the ecological

balance. The general public is becoming aware of the

need to protect environment. Even though, laws have

been passed for the protection of environment, the

enforcement of the same has been tardy, to say the

least. With the governmental authorities not showing

any concern with the enforcement of the said Acts, and

with the development taking place for personal gains

at the expense of environment and with disregard of

the mandatory provisions of law, some public-spirited

persons have been initiating public interest litigations.

The legal position relating to the exercise of jurisdiction

by the courts for preventing environmental degradation

and thereby, seeking to protect the fundamental rights of

the citizens, is now well settled by various decisions of

this Court. The primary effort of the court, while dealing

with the environmental-related issues, is to see that the

enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any

other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement

of the laws. The courts, in a way, act as the guardian of

the people’s fundamental rights but in regard to many

technical matters, the courts may not be fully equipped.

Perforce, it has to rely on outside agencies for reports and

recommendations whereupon orders have been passed

6 [1996] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 507 : (1996) 5 SCC 281 : 1996 INSC 543

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 247

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

from time to time. Even though, it is not the function of the

court to see the day-to-day enforcement of the law, that

being the function of the Executive, but because of the

non-functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts

as of necessity have had to pass orders directing the

enforcement agencies to implement the law.”

77. Emphasizing on the concern for environmental and ecological

protection, the Courts have recognised the importance of sustainable

development. Development which can be achieved only by way of

protecting the environment and conserving the natural resources

for the benefit of humanity and future generations. This Court holds

that, it is now an accepted social principle that all human beings

have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate

with their well-being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring

that resources are conserved and preserved in such a way that

the present as well as future generations will be aware of them

equally. This Court has further held that, the primary effort of the

court while dealing with the environment-related issues, is to see

that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any other

authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws. It

has been held that the courts, in a way, act as the guardian of

the people’s fundamental rights. This Court has observed that it

is not the function of the court to see the day-to-day enforcement

of the law; that being the function of the Executive, but because

of the non-functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts out

of necessity have had to pass orders directing the enforcement

agencies to implement the law. In the recent judgments of this Court

in the cases of Resident’s Welfare Association and another v.

Union Territory of Chandigarh and others7

, State of Himachal

Pradesh and others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and another8

and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Uday Education and

Welfare Trust and others9

, to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.)

was a party, this Court has also emphasized on the principle of

sustainable development.

7 [2023] 1 SCR 601 : (2023) 8 SCC 643 : 2023 INSC 22

8 [2024] 1 SCR 973 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 36 : 2024 INSC 30

9 [2022] 19 SCR 781 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469 : 2022 INSC 465

248 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(a) Consideration as to whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on

the same footing or not.

78. In this background, we will have to consider the question as to whether

the ‘zoo’ as defined under Section 2(39) and dealt with under Chapter

IVA of the WLP Act and the ‘Tiger Safaris’ as conceptualized by the

NTCA would stand on a same footing or not.

79. We have already reproduced the definition of ‘zoo’ as defined under

Section 2(39) of the WLP Act. The definition of ‘zoo’ itself would

show that 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. It could thus be seen that though a ‘zoo’ as contemplated

under Chapter IVA of the WLP Act also deals with conservation, it

emphasizes on ex situ conservation.

80. Proviso to Section 33(a) of the WLP Act specifically prohibits

any construction of tourist lodges, including Government lodges

for commercial purposes, hotels, zoos and safari parks inside a

sanctuary except with the prior approval of the National Board. It

could thus be seen that, insofar as the area which is covered under

a sanctuary is concerned, there will be no difficulty to hold that a

safari cannot be constructed within the said area unless there is a

prior approval of the National Board. However, the question that

falls for consideration in the present case is, as to whether a ‘Tiger

Safari’ would be permissible in the buffer zone or not.

81. For the first time, a ‘safari’ was defined in the ‘Guidelines for Safari

Parks which are Working either as Zoos or as Extension to Zoos,

1996’. It reads thus :

“Safaries are specialized zoos where the captive animals

are housed in any large naturalistic enclosures to and

the visitors are allowed to enter the enclosure to view

the animals in a mechanized vehicle or a pre-determined

route from close quarters.”

82. It could thus be seen from the title of the said Guidelines itself that

the same would be applicable only insofar as safari parks which are

working either as zoos or as an extension to zoos. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 249

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

83. Undisputedly, the ‘Tiger Safaris’ which are conceptualized by the

NTCA are not for the parks which are working either as zoos or as

an extension to zoos.

84. As already discussed herein above, the entire thrust of the WLP Act is

on the conservation, protection, and management of wildlife. Noticing

the importance of tigers as a centre of the eco-system, Chapter IVB

of the WLP Act, which deals with NTCA, was inserted by the Wild

Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006 (No. 39 of 2006) with effect

from 4th September 2006. A perusal of Chapter IVB would reveal

that it emphasizes on the conservation and protection of tigers and

the management of the ‘Tiger Reserves’. A very important role has

been entrusted to the NTCA which is to be chaired by the Minister

in charge of the Ministry of Environment and Forests insofar as the

conservation and protection of tigers and the management of ‘Tiger

Reserves’ is concerned.

85. As already discussed herein above, clause (c) of Section 38-O of

the WLP Act requires the NTCA to lay down normative standards

for tourism activities and guidelines for project tiger from time to

time for tiger conservation in the buffer and core area of tiger

reserves and ensure their due compliance. Clause (g) thereof

requires the NTCA to ensure that the tiger reserves and areas

linking one protected area or tiger reserve with another protected

area or tiger reserve are not diverted for ecologically unsustainable

uses, except in public interest and that too, with the approval of

the National Board for Wild Life and on the advice of the Tiger

Conservation Authority.

86. It is to be noted that after the State Government, on the recommendation

of the NTCA, notifies an area as a ‘Tiger Reserve’, the restriction as

provided under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32 and clauses

(b) and (c) of Section 33 of this Act shall, as far as may be, apply in

relation to a ‘Tiger Reserve’ as they apply in relation to a sanctuary.

87. Section 38XA of the WLP Act specifically provides that the provisions

contained in the said Chapter shall be in addition to, and not in

derogation of, the provisions relating to sanctuaries and National

Parks. As such, it could be seen that the legislature has put ‘Tiger

Reserve’ on a higher pedestal than the sanctuaries and the National

Parks. 

250 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

88. Sub-section (4) of Section 38V of the WLP Act requires the State

Government, while preparing a TCP, to ensure the agricultural,

livelihood, developmental and other interests of the people living in

tiger bearing forests or a tiger reserve. Explanation thereto divides the

‘Tiger Reserve’ into two areas, i.e., (i) core or critical tiger habitat areas

of National Parks and sanctuaries, which are required to be kept as

inviolate for the purposes of tiger conservation, without affecting the

rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other forest dwellers; and (ii)

buffer or peripheral area, where a lesser degree of habitat protection is

required to ensure the integrity of the critical tiger habitat. While doing

so, the State Government is required to ensure adequate dispersal

for the tiger species, which aims at promoting co-existence between

wildlife and human activity with due recognition of the livelihood,

developmental, social and cultural rights of the local people, wherein

the limits of such areas are determined based on the scientific and

objective criteria in consultation with the concerned Gram Sabha and

an Expert Committee constituted for the purpose are to be provided.

89. It is thus clear that, 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. An effort has to be made to promote co-existence between

wildlife and human activity with due recognition of the livelihood,

developmental, social and cultural rights.

90. It is further to be noted that the National Forest Policy, 1988 also

emphasizes the necessity to provide for “corridors” linking the

protected areas to maintain genetic continuity between artificially

separated sub-sections of migrant wildlife. Even the National Wildlife

Action Plan 2017-31 emphasizes on the same. As held by this Court

in the case of Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide FundIndia (supra), this Policy has a statutory flavor.

91. As held by this Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad

v. Union of India and others (supra), the approach has to be

ecocentric and not anthropocentric. The approach has to be naturecentred where humans are a part of nature and non-humans have

intrinsic value.

92. We will now have to examine as to how the concept of ‘Tiger Safaris’

came to be introduced. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 251

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

93. We have already reproduced the relevant part of the Guidelines for

Preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan, 2007. The said Guidelines

show how important is the buffer zone vis-à-vis the tiger land

tenure dynamics. Based on the available research data, it has

been found that the minimum population of tigresses in breeding

age, which is needed to maintain a viable population of 80-100

tigers (in and around core areas) requires an inviolate space of

800 -1000 sq. km. It also states that the tiger being an “umbrella

species”, such an area would also ensure viable populations of

other wild animals (co-predators, prey) and forest, thereby ensuring

the ecological viability of the entire area/habitat. It can also be

seen that the buffer areas with forest connectivity are imperative

for tiger dynamics since such areas foster sub-adults, young

adults, transients, and old members of the population. The young

adults periodically replace the resident aging males and females

from the source population area. It also states that the buffer area

absorbs the “shock” of poaching pressure on populations of tigers

and other wild animals.

94. It is for the first time, in “the 2012 Guidelines” issued by the NTCA

on 15th October 2012, that the concept of establishment of the ‘Tiger

Safari’ could be found, which has already been reproduced herein

above. The said Guidelines provided that the ‘Tiger Safaris’ may be

established in the buffer areas of tiger reserves which experience

immense tourist influx in the core/critical tiger habitat for viewing tigers.

It also provided for the establishment of interpretation and awareness

centres in such buffer areas to foster awareness for eliciting public

support. It provided that the management of such centres would be

through the respective Panchayati Raj (PR) institutions.

95. Thereafter in 2016, the NTCA issued guidelines to establish ‘Tiger

Safaris’ in the buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves. These

guidelines provided for the basic criteria, and procedure required

in the buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves for dealing with the

establishment, management, and administration of ‘Tiger Safaris’

after following the due procedure prescribed under the law and the

2012 guidelines as also the CZA guidelines for the establishment

of new zoos under section 38H(1A) of the WLP Act. Clause 8 of

the said Guidelines provides that, if the carrying capacity is 100%

utilized, then a proposal for establishing a ‘Tiger Safari’ can be placed

before the NTCA.

252 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

96. Clause 9 of the 2016 guidelines is very important. It specifically

provides that no tiger shall be obtained from a zoo exhibit. It further

provides that wild tigers which are from the same landscape as that

of the area where the tiger safari is established, would fall under the

categories of (a) injured tigers (after suitable treatment); (b) conflict

tigers; and (c) orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for re-wilding and

release into the wild should be selected. It further provides that no

visibly injured or incapacitated tiger shall be put in the safari. It further

provides that recovered/treated animals shall be put on display only

after assessment by the NTCA. It further provides that no healthy

wild tiger or any other animal shall be sourced from the wild as per

the provisions of the National Zoo Policy.

97. Clause 10 of the 2016 guidelines further provides that the location

of the tiger safari shall be identified preferably in the buffer (not

falling in notified National Parks and/or Wildlife Sanctuary)/peripheral

area of the tiger reserve on the basis of the recommendations of

a committee comprising of members from the NTCA, CZA, Forest

Department of State concerned, an experienced tiger biologist/

scientist/conservationist and a representative, nominated by the Chief

Wildlife Warden of the concerned State. It further provides that tiger

dispersal routes shall be avoided in all circumstances.

98. However, the NTCA has issued fresh guidelines in November 2019.

The 2019 Guidelines are similar to the 2016 Guidelines, except clause

9, which provides that the selection of the animal shall be done in

conformity with Section 38I of the WLP Act after due approval of

the CZA.

99. It could thus be seen that under the 2016 Guidelines, the concept

of ‘Tiger Safaris’ was mainly for rehabilitation of the injured tigers

(after suitable treatment), conflict tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs

which are unfit for re-wilding and release into the wild. The final

authority insofar as selection of the animals is concerned, vested

with the NTCA. It could also be seen that the said 2016 Guidelines

are also consistent with the SOP of the NTCA to deal with orphaned,

abandoned tiger cubs and old/injured tigers in wild. The concept was

changed in the 2019 Guidelines i.e. animals from zoo will be put in

Safari. It provided that the selection of the animals shall be done in

conformity with Section 38I of the WLP Act. The final authority of

the selection of animals is vested with the CZA. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 253

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

100. We prima facie find 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’. In our view, the said Guidelines emphasizes on

the rehabilitation of injured tigers (after suitable treatment), conflict

tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for re-wilding 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. In our view, this would be totally contrary

to the purpose of the Tiger Conservation. Similarly, the vesting of

final authority in the CZA and not in the NTCA, in our view, is not

in tune with the emphasis on tiger conservation as provided under

Chapter IVB of the WLP Act. We are also of the view that since

undertaking of establishment of such a ‘Tiger Safari’ would be

basically for the ‘in-situ’ conservation and protection of the tiger, it

is the NTCA that shall have the final authority. No doubt that the

CZA can be taken on board so that it can render its expertise in

the management of such ‘Safaris’.

101. We also find that, a reading of the provisions contained in the proviso

to Section 33(a) and the provisions contained in the Explanation (ii)

of sub-section 4 of Section 38V of the WLP Act would reveal 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.

102. As already discussed herein above, while preparing a TCP, the State

Government is required to ensure that the agricultural, livelihood,

developmental, and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing

forests or a tiger reserve are taken care of.

103. Undisputedly, it may not be out of place to mention that the

establishment of such ‘safaris’ in the buffer zone would generate

employment for the local people and promote co-existence between

wildlife and human activity. However, we are of the considered

view that 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.

(b) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau is

legal or not.

254 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

104. We will now have to consider whether the establishment of the ‘Tiger

Safari’ at Pakhrau is legal or not.

105. TCP in respect of the Corbett Tiger Reserve Core Zone for the

period 2012-13 to 2021-2022 was submitted to the NTCA on 27th

January 2015. The said TCP has been approved by the NTCA on

4th March 2015.

106. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant portion of clause 13.1.2 of

the said TCP, which reads thus :

“There is also need to develop a Rescue Centre cum

Tiger Safari in the buffer area of CTR so as to provide an

easy option for rescue and rehabilitation of injured and/or

infirm or problem tigers and to provide opportunities for

visitors to see tigers up close in a near natural controlled

environment.”

107. It could thus be seen that, the TCP also provided for developing a

Rescue Centre-cum-Tiger Safari to provide an easy option for the

rescue and rehabilitation of the injured and/or infirm or problem tigers

and also to provide an opportunity for visitors to see tigers up close

and in a near-natural controlled environment.

108. It will be relevant to refer to clause J of the said TCP, which reads

thus :

“J. Exploring the possibility of a Tiger Safari :

Though Corbett Tiger Reserve is known for its tigers and

it attracts lots of tourists, many of them could not see

tiger and they return with heavy hearts. It is a fact that

maximum tourists are only interested with the sighting

of tigers. Although the park administration is trying its

best to educate and aware tourists to enjoy the breath

taking landscape with wildlife such as elephants, deer

and crocodiles, casual tourists always hunt for sighting

of a tiger. At this point the recent guideline enacted by

NTCA for setting up of a ‘Tiger Safari’ in the buffer area

to divert casual tourists from the tourism zone which will

ultimately benefit the habitat from unnecessary pressure

from growing tourists. The tiger safari will generate

huge revenue which will enrich the ‘Tiger Conservation

Foundation of CTR’ and ultimately the fringe villagers. A 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 255

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

detail proposal will be prepared as per the guidelines of

NTCA and CZA for funding by NTCA. There is a strong

possibility of developing such a safari in Karnashram area

of Lansdowne Forest Division.”

109. The TCP takes into consideration the concept of diversion of casual

tourists from the tourism zone to the ‘Tiger Safari’ in the buffer

zone. It also states that this will ultimately benefit the habitat from

unnecessary pressure from the growing tourists. It states that the

‘Tiger Safari’ will generate huge revenue which will enrich the ‘Tiger

Conservation Foundation of CTR’ and ultimately the fringe villages.

It also proposed a site for a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Karnashram area of

Lansdowne Forest Division.

110. A perusal of the materials placed on record would reveal that the

NTCA vide its order dated 5th June 2015, had granted an in-principal

approval for establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ in Pakhrau. The CZA,

vide order dated 12th February 2019, conveyed its approval on the

conditions stipulated therein. The ‘Tiger Safari’ project, therefore,

was approved by the CZA. Since at the relevant time, ‘Tiger Safari’

was considered as a ‘part forest and part non-forestry’ activity, an

in-principal approval was granted by the Government of India under

the Forest Conservation Act on 30th October 2020 for the Forest

Clearance of 15% of the area. The Stage-I clearance was granted

on 30th October 2020 and the Stage II clearance was granted on

10th September 2021.

111. It could be seen that, the location of the ‘Tiger Safari’ has not been

identified as per clause 10 of the 2016 Guidelines which requires

recommendations of the Committee comprising of the members

from (i) NTCA, (ii) CZA, (iii) Forest Department of concerned State,

(iv) an experienced tiger biologist/scientist/conservationist, and (v)

a representative, nominated by the Chief Wildlife Warden of the

concerned State.

112. From the record, it does not appear that such a Committee was

constituted for the purpose of determining the location of the ‘Tiger

Safari’ at Pakhrau. However, since there are approvals from the

NTCA and the CZA and since the proposal for the establishment

of ‘Tiger Safari’ was submitted by the Forest Department of the

State, and since the Chief Wildlife Warden was also associated

with identification of the location, we find that, though technically 

256 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

there will be non-compliance with the requirement of clause 10 of

the 2016 Guidelines; in fact, since most of the authorities mentioned

therein are ad idem, we do not wish to interfere with the decision to

establish the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau.

113. We also place on record that Shri Anup Malik, IFS, PCCF (HoFF),

Uttarakhand, and Dr. Samir Sinha, IFS, PCCF (Wildlife) & Chief

Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand, who were present in the Court during

the hearing, have informed the Court that 80% of the work of the

‘Tiger Safari’ is complete. It is further informed that there are many

tigers, who after their treatment are waiting in the rescue centre for

being rehabilitated in the ‘Safari’. It is also informed that the location

of the ‘Tiger Safari’ is at the edge of the buffer zone, abutting the

farmlands of the villagers. It is also informed that the topography

of Karnashram area of Lansdowne Forest Division was not found

suitable for the ‘Tiger Safari’ due to its terrain and the site at Pakhrau

was found to be suitable. In any case, the concerned authorities, who

have expertise in the matter, have approved the said site at Pakhrau.

114. In these peculiar facts, we are inclined to approve the establishment

of the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau. However, we find that when the TCP

of 2015 itself provided for the establishment of a Rescue Centrecum-Tiger Safari at a nearby place, there appears to be no logic

for establishing a rescue centre at another place. We therefore find

that it will be appropriate that the State of Uttarakhand is directed

to also relocate the rescue centre nearby the ‘Tiger Safari’. At the

same time, it will also be necessary to issue directions that, while

undertaking construction of these ‘Tiger Safaris’, the provisions of

the 2016 Guidelines are scrupulously followed. We also propose to

issue further directions in this regard, in the operative part of the

judgment. The directions which would be issued by us would also be

applicable to the existing safaris including the Pakhrau Tiger Safari.

(c) Illegal construction and felling of trees

115. The next question that requires consideration is with regard to the

illegal construction carried out in the Corbett Tiger Reserve and the

illegal felling of trees for the said purpose.

116. The Corbett National Park is one of the oldest parks in the country.

It was declared a National Park by the United Provinces National

Park Act, 1935. After the launch of ‘Project Tiger’ and the amendment

to the WLP Act in the year 2006, which inserted Chapter IVB, a 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 257

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

Tiger Reserve admeasuring 1,288.31 sq. km. was notified by the

Government of Uttarakhand by notification dated 26th February

2010, issued under Section 38V(1). Out of this 1,288.31 sq. km.,

821.99 sq. km. has been declared as the core critical Tiger Habitat.

Further, out of this 821.99 sq. km., 520.82 sq. km. forms part of the

Corbett National Park, and 301.17 sq. km. of the Sonanadi Wildlife

Sanctuary. The remaining reserved forest to the extent of 466.32

sq. km is a buffer area constituting 306.90 sq. km. in the Kalagarh

Forest Division and 159.4 sq. km. in the Ram Nagar Forest Division.

117. The forests of the Corbett Tiger Reserve form an essential link corridor

between Corbett and Rajaji National Park through the Rawasana –

Sonanadi Corridor in the Lansdowne Forest Division.

118. The importance of the Corbett National Park has been captured in

the “Status of Tigers, Co-predators & Prey in India” in the following

words :

“Corbett Tiger Reserve is the largest source population

for tigers in Shivalik-Gangetic landscape and responsible

for the remarkable recovery of tiger population in this

landscape. The corridors connecting Corbett with the

surrounding forest divisions and protected areas are crucial

for the long-term survival of this metapopulation.

xxx     xxx     xxx

With a high ungulate biomass in the park Corbett Tiger

Reserve maintains a high tiger density acting as a source

of dispersing tigers to neighbouring protected areas

(Lansdowne, Terai West, Amangarh and Ramnagar Forest

Division) and is therefore of great importance for tiger

and wildlife conservation in this landscape. Corbett Tiger

Reserve has the largest tiger population in any single

Protected Area in the world.”

119. The Fifth Cycle of the ‘Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Tiger

Reserves in India’ was released in the year 2023 based on the survey

conducted in the year 2022. Though this evaluation gives a good

rating to the Corbett Tiger Reserve, yet certain weaknesses have

been pointed out. The Indian State of Forest Report 2021 (ISFR 21)

suggests that the forest cover in the Corbett Tiger Reserve in 2011

was VDF 330.88 sq. km.; MDF 825 sq. km.; and OF 91.61 sq.km. 

258 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and that it has undergone changes, as found in the year 2021. The

report also says that there has been a loss of 22 sq. km. of forest

cover in the Tiger Reserve. It further noticed that the human-tiger

conflict in the landscape is also increasing, and the loss of tree cover

has resulted in loss of habitat and increased conflict with humans.

It is pointed out that, as of now no Eco Sensitive Zone (“ESZ” for

short) has been notified for the Corbett Tigre Reserve. It suggested

that in the absence of such notification, the activities in the 10 km.

deemed ESZ must be regulated.

120. It further points out that the building materials were found stored for

remodeling private resorts along the Ramnagar-Ranikhet highway. It

recommended that such activities must be regulated. It also points

out that the Ramnagar-Ranikhet highway is persistently acting as

a barrier for many species, including the elephant. It suggested

that these roads have to be made eco-friendly according to the

guidelines.

121. Report No. 3 of 2023 in Application No.1558 of 2021 in Writ Petition

(Civil) No.202 of 1995 submitted by the CEC has annexed various

reports containing findings of the Committees constituted under the

orders of the High Courts. The CEC has considered the following :

(i) Findings of the Committee constituted by the NTCA pursuant to

the order dated 23rd August 2021, passed by the High Court of

Delhi in Writ Petition No.8729 of 2021 filed by the applicant-Mr.

Gaurav Kumar Bansal;

(ii) Report dated 9th November 2021 filed jointly by PCCF (General),

PCCF (Wildlife) and the Director of the Corbett National Park

before the High Court of Uttarakhand pursuant to the order of

the High Court dated 27th October 2021 in Writ Petition No.178

of 2021;

(iii) Site Inspection Report of the Regional Office, MoEF&CC,

Dehradun in respect of the illegal felling of trees and illegal

construction of buildings and waterbodies in the Corbett Tiger

Reserve Landscape, Uttarakhand.

(iv) Findings of the Five Member Kapil Joshi Committee constituted

by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF) vide letter

No.948/P.O. dated 27th December 2021 and 1002/P.O. dated

12th January 2022.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 259

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(v) Report of FSI dated 20th October 2022 on the felling of trees

in the name of establishment of the Pakhrau Tiger Safari,

Uttarakhand.

122. After considering the aforesaid reports/findings, the CEC has come

to a finding that various irregularities have been committed in the

areas outside the Tiger Safari as well as in the Pakhrau Tiger Safari.

They have been listed as under :

"A. IRREGULARITIES OUTSIDE THE TIGER SAFARI

a) improvement to Kandi Road over a length of 1.2

KM by way of raising the level of the road and

construction of culverts without the approval/

sanction of the competent authority and without

any provision in the budget.

b) construction of four buildings each with 4 rooms

at Forest Rest House (FRH) complex, Pakhrau.

c) construction of four buildings, each with 4 rooms

at Forest Rest House Complex, Morghatti.

d) construction of a water body each near Pakhrau

FRH and Morghatti FRH after clearing the tree

growth

e) construction of four buildings outside the

Kugadda Forest CAMP in Palean Range,

Kalagarh Forest Division falling with in the

Corbett Tiger Reserve. These four buildings had

identical building plans similar to those seen in

Morghatti and Pakhrau, FRH Complex.

f) construction by DFO, Kalagarh of Saneh Forest

Rest House falling in Lansdowne Forest Division

pursuant to the directions of CCF, Garhwal vide

letter dated 15.09.2021.

g) laying of underground 11 KV electrical cables

between Saneh and Pakhrau.

The noted works at (a) to (g) above were being carried

out without requisite administrative and financial

approvals of the competent authority. The works 

260 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

were being executed solely under the orders of the

DFO, Kalagarh and DFO Kalagarh is not competent

to sanction these works.

B. IRREGULARITIES IN PAKHRAU TIGER SAFARI

a) Illegal felling of estimated 6053 trees at the

proposed Tiger Safari construction sites in place

of 163 permitted to be cut in the FC clearance

granted by MoEF&CC

b) Commencement of construction work of Pakhrau

Tiger Safari even before getting stage II

clearance under FC Act 1980 and final approval

of the Layout Plans by the Central Zoo Authority

c) Concrete buildings are being constructed instead

of using bamboo which has been approved by

MoEF&CC.

d) Additional civil structures are planned and being

built without approval of the revised plan and

accordingly the estimate has escalated from

Rs.26.81 crores to Rs.102.11 crores”

123. The aforesaid list of irregularities would reveal that a vast number of

illegal construction activities have been carried out. Such constructions

cannot be completed overnight. Though an action has been taken in

respect of certain officers of the Forest Department, we are of the

prima facie view that many other persons must have been involved

in the commission of the said irregularities. However, since the CBI

is conducting the investigation as per the orders passed by the High

Court, we do not propose to make any comments thereto.

124. It has been categorically stated in the report that CEC was informed

about all the civil structures being constructed in respect of works at

“A” except one building at Kuggada which has been demolished. It

has been stated that one building which has not been demolished

has been used by the Forest Staff as their camping place because of

lack of alternative accommodation. We are also informed during the

hearing that, except for the works executed at the Pakhrau Tiger Safari

site, the contractors who executed the works without the approval

of competent authorities have not been made any payments and

that the contractors have also not made any claims in this regard. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 261

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

125. The CEC during the site visit was shown the locations where the

unauthorized buildings once stood but these buildings were not there

at the time of the site visit of CEC as they had been demolished on

the orders of the Director, ‘Project Tiger’.

126. The CEC has further noticed that the DFO, Kalagarh who executed

the work illegally had committed similar irregularities during his

earlier postings. It is also noticed that the PCCF & HoFF and the

DIG Police, Vigilance Department had written in this regard to the

Government requesting not to post the said officer in any sensitive

post. The Range Officer posted in Pakhrau range had earlier worked

with Kishan Chand, DFO, Kalagarh while he was the DFO in the

Rajaji Tiger Reserve. Despite the fact that both these officers were

accused of the irregularities that took place in the Rajaji Tiger

Reserve, they were again posted together in the Kalagarh Forest

Division.

127. The CEC also noticed that the DFO, Kalagarh was transferred from

the Kalagarh Forest Division only after the site visit of the CEC

even though the report submitted by the NTCA had found that the

illegalities/irregularities were committed by him. It is also noticed

that even after it came to the notice of the higher authorities that

the DFO, Kalagarh had issued work orders without any authority in

respect of the works which have been listed above, yet for unknown

reasons, he was not named as an accused in the forest offences.

128. The CEC has formed an opinion that the cavalier attitude of the

Government of Uttarakhand indicated that the officer was having tacit

backing of his bosses in the execution of the unauthorized works

worth crores of rupees at the cost of the environment and the wildlife

in a prestigious and world-renowned Tiger Reserve.

129. The CEC further found that, though the works at the Forest Rest

House Campuses were supposed to be for the accommodation of

the forest staff, they do not appear to be so. They appear to be

meant for providing accommodation consisting of 16 rooms at four

locations (64 rooms) for tourists. As per the CEC, it was clear that

this was done for the promotion of tourism.

130. The report of the CEC further found that the proposal for the felling

of trees at the site of Pakhrau Tiger Safari submitted to MoEF&CC

under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 relates to the felling of

only 163 trees out of 3,620 trees that have been enumerated within 

262 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the 16 Hectares out of the 106.16 Hectares that has been approved

for the establishment of the Tiger Safari. It also refers to the report

of the FSI dated 20th October 2022, which has estimated the total

number of trees felled at the Pakhrau Tiger Safari site to be 2,651.

The report further states that approximately additional 534 trees have

been felled for the construction of tourist accommodation facilities

and water bodies outside the proposed Pakhrau Tiger Safari.

131. No doubt that the report refers to the objection of the Uttarakhand

Forest Department to the estimation of the FSI, which is also

reiterated before us by Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel during

his arguments.

132. The report of the CEC further highlights that taking into consideration

the sequence of events that happened, it was of the opinion that it

was the then Hon’ble Forest Minister who was the main architect of

the entire matter. In a nutshell, the reasons thereof are as under :

(i) That, the State Vigilance Department vide letter dated 19th

September 2019 and the PCCF and HoFF vide letters dated

18th September 2019 and 21st September 2019 had requested

the State Government not to post Mr. Kishan Chand at any

sensitive post, he was still given a posting in a sensitive post.

(ii) That, though there was no proposal from the Forest Department

and no recommendation from the Civil Service Board (CSB)

to post Mr. Kishan Chand at the Kalagarh Forest Division,

ignoring the recommendation of the PCCF & HoFF and the

State Vigilance Department, the then Hon’ble Forest Minister

inserted the name of Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO at serial No. 11

in the proposal relating to transfer and postings. This insertion

was made on 26th April 2021 before the concerned file was

submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for approval of the

posting proposal.

(iii) Though the Secretary (Forests) vide notings dated 27th October

2021, after considering the seriousness of the irregularities

reported by the NTCA, recommended placing Mr. Kishan Chand

under suspension, the then Hon’ble Forest Minister has not only

overruled the recommendation of the Secretary (Forests) for

suspension but also justified the proposed posting to Lansdowne

Division stating that Mr. Kishan Chand only executed works

which had been started by his predecessors. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 263

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(iv) The then Hon’ble Forest Minister justified the construction of

new buildings on the ground that they were being constructed

as per the approvals granted by the Corbett Tiger Reserve

Foundation. Overruling the proposal of the Secretary (Forest)

for suspension, the then Hon’ble Forest Minister justified the

actions of the DFO Mr. Kishan Chand, and recommended

that the officer be transferred from the post of DFO Kalagarh

Forest Division to the post of DFO Lansdowne Forest Division,

Lansdowne.

(v) Subsequently, the posting of Mr. Kishan Chand was reviewed

and revised on 24th November 2021 by the Hon’ble Chief

Minister and the officer was posted to the Office of the HoFF

on administrative grounds. This change in proposal relating

to the posting of Mr. Kishan Chand was put up to the Chief

Minister directly as was noticed by the CEC from the copies

of the notings on the file.

(vi) Ignoring the recommendation of the authorities to place Mr.

Kishan Chand under suspension, the then Hon’ble Forest

Minister once again attempted to post the officer to Lansdowne

Territorial Forest Division by inserting his name at serial no.

16 in the transfer and posting proposals. This was done again

without any proposal from the Forest Department and without

the recommendation of CSB.

(vii) That, it was only after the then Forest Minister demitted office

that Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO was finally put under suspension.

(d) ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine

133. It appears that the then Hon’ble Forest Minister and Mr. Kishan

Chand had completely forgotten about the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine.

134. The importance of the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine in environmental and

ecological matters has been explained by this Court in the case of

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others10. This Court has elaborately

referred to various articles and the judgments on the issue to come

to a conclusion that the ‘public trust’ doctrine is a part of the law of

the land in the following paragraphs :

10 [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 12 : (1997) 1 SCC 388 : 1996 INSC 1482

264 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“23. The notion that the public has a right to expect certain

lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristic

is finding its way into the law of the land. The need to

protect the environment and ecology has been summed

up by David B. Hunter (University of Michigan) in an article

titled An ecological perspective on property : A call for

judicial protection of the public’s interest in environmentally

critical resources published in Harvard Environmental Law

Review, Vol. 12 1988, p. 311 is in the following words :

“Another major ecological tenet is that the world is

finite. The earth can support only so many people

and only so much human activity before limits are

reached. This lesson was driven home by the oil

crisis of the 1970s as well as by the pesticide scare

of the 1960s. The current deterioration of the ozone

layer is another vivid example of the complex,

unpredictable and potentially catastrophic effects

posed by our disregard of the environmental limits

to economic growth. The absolute finiteness of the

environment, when coupled with human dependency

on the environment, leads to the unquestionable

result that human activities will at some point be

constrained.

‘Human activity finds in the natural world its

external limits. In short, the environment imposes

constraints on our freedom; these constraints

are not the product of value choices but of

the scientific imperative of the environment’s

limitations. Reliance on improving technology

can delay temporarily, but not forever, the

inevitable constraints. There is a limit to the

capacity of the environment to service …

growth, both in providing raw materials and

in assimilating by-product wastes due to

consumption. The largesse of technology can

only postpone or disguise the inevitable.’

Professor Barbara Ward has written of this ecological

imperative in particularly vivid language : 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 265

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

‘We can forget moral imperatives. But today the

morals of respect and care and modesty come to

us in a form we cannot evade. We cannot cheat

on DNA. We cannot get round photosynthesis. We

cannot say I am not going to give a damn about

phytoplankton. All these tiny mechanisms provide

the preconditions of our planetary life. To say we

do not care is to say in the most literal sense that

“we choose death”.’

There is a commonly-recognized link between laws

and social values, but to ecologists a balance between

laws and values is not alone sufficient to ensure

a stable relationship between humans and their

environment. Laws and values must also contend with

the constraints imposed by the outside environment.

Unfortunately, current legal doctrine rarely accounts

for such constraints, and thus environmental stability

is threatened.

Historically, we have changed the environment to fit

our conceptions of property. We have fenced, plowed

and paved. The environment has proven malleable

and to a large extent still is. But there is a limit to

this malleability, and certain types of ecologically

important resources — for example, wetlands and

riparian forests — can no longer be destroyed without

enormous long-term effects on environmental and

therefore social stability. To ecologists, the need for

preserving sensitive resources does not reflect value

choices but rather is the necessary result of objective

observations of the laws of nature.

In sum, ecologists view the environmental sciences

as providing us with certain laws of nature. These

laws, just like our own laws, restrict our freedom of

conduct and choice. Unlike our laws, the laws of

nature cannot be changed by legislative fiat; they are

imposed on us by the natural world. An understanding

of the laws of nature must therefore inform all of our

social institutions.”

266 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

24. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory

known as the “Doctrine of the Public Trust”. It was founded

on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers,

seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in

trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general

public. Our contemporary concern about “the environment”

bear a very close conceptual relationship to this legal

doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources were

either owned by no one (res nullious) or by every one in

common (res communious). Under the English common

law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources

but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could

not grant these properties to private owners if the effect

was to interfere with the public interests in navigation or

fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were

deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of

the public. Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of

Michigan — proponent of the Modern Public Trust Doctrine

— in an erudite article “Public Trust Doctrine in Natural

Resource Law : Effective Judicial Intervention”, Michigan

Law Review, Vol. 68, Part 1 p. 473, has given the historical

background of the Public Trust Doctrine as under :

“The source of modern public trust law is found in a

concept that received much attention in Roman and

English law — the nature of property rights in rivers,

the sea, and the seashore. That history has been

given considerable attention in the legal literature,

need not be repeated in detail here. But two points

should be emphasized. First, certain interests, such as

navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved

for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property

used for those purposes was distinguished from

general public property which the sovereign could

routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it

was understood that in certain common properties

— such as the seashore, highways, and running

water — ‘perpetual use was dedicated to the public’,

it has never been clear whether the public had an

enforceable right to prevent infringement of those 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 267

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

interests. Although the State apparently did protect

public uses, no evidence is available that public

rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant

government.”

25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle

that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests

have such a great importance to the people as a whole

that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject

of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of

nature, they should be made freely available to everyone

irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon

the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment

of the general public rather than to permit their use for

private ownership or commercial purposes. According

to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the

following restrictions on governmental authority :

“Three types of restrictions on governmental authority

are often thought to be imposed by the public trust :

first, the property subject to the trust must not only

be used for a public purpose, but it must be held

available for use by the general public; second,

the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash

equivalent; and third the property must be maintained

for particular types of uses.”

26. The American law on the subject is primarily based

on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in

Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois

[146 US 387 : 36 L Ed 1018 (1892)]. In the year 1869 the

Illinois Legislature made a substantial grant of submerged

lands — a mile strip along the shores of Lake Michigan

extending one mile out from the shoreline — to the Illinois

Central Railroad. In 1873, the Legislature changed its

mind and repealed the 1869 grant. The State of Illinois

sued to quit title. The Court while accepting the stand of

the State of Illinois held that the title of the State in the

land in dispute was a title different in character from that

which the State held in lands intended for sale. It was

different from the title which the United States held in 

268 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

public lands which were open to pre-emption and sale.

It was a title held in trust — for the people of the State

that they may enjoy the navigation of the water, carry on

commerce over them and have liberty of fishing therein

free from obstruction or interference of private parties.

The abdication of the general control of the State over

lands in dispute was not consistent with the exercise of

the trust which required the Government of the State to

preserve such waters for the use of the public. According

to Professor Sax the Court in Illinois Central [146 US

387 : 36 L Ed 1018 (1892)] “articulated a principle that

has become the central substantive thought in public

trust litigation. When a State holds a resource which is

available for the free use of the general public, a court will

look with considerable skepticism upon any governmental

conduct which is calculated either to relocate that resource

to more restricted uses or to subject public uses to the

self-interest of private parties”.

27. In Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission

[350 Mass 410 (1966)] the Supreme Judicial Court of

Massachusetts took the first major step in developing

the doctrine applicable to changes in the use of lands

dedicated to the public interest. In 1886 a group of citizens

interested in preserving Mount Greylock as an unspoiled

natural forest, promoted the creation of an association for

the purpose of laying out a public park on it. The State

ultimately acquired about 9000 acres, and the legislature

enacted a statute creating the Greylock Reservation

Commission. In the year 1953, the legislature enacted

a statute creating an Authority to construct and operate

on Mount Greylock an Aerial Tramway and certain other

facilities and it authorised the Commission to lease to the

Authority any portion of the Mount Greylock Reservation.

Before the project commenced, five citizens brought an

action against both the Greylock Reservation Commission

and the Tramway Authority. The plaintiffs brought the suit

as beneficiaries of the public trust. The Court held both

the lease and the management agreement invalid on the

ground that they were in excess of the statutory grant of 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 269

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

the authority. The crucial passage in the judgment of the

Court is as under :

“The profit-sharing feature and some aspects of

the project itself strongly suggest a commercial

enterprise. In addition to the absence of any clear

or express statutory authorization of as broad a

delegation of responsibility by the Authority as is

given by the management agreement, we find no

express grant to the Authority or power to permit

use of public lands and of the Authority’s borrowed

funds for what seems, in part at least, a commercial

venture for private profit.”

Professor Sax’s comments on the above-quoted paragraph

from Gould decision are as under :

“It hardly seems surprising, then, that the court

questioned why a State should subordinate a

public park, serving a useful purpose as relatively

undeveloped land, to the demands of private investors

for building such a commercial facility. The court, faced

with such a situation, could hardly have been expected

to have treated the case as if it involved nothing but

formal legal issues concerning the State’s authority

to change the use of a certain tract of land…. Gould,

like Illinois Central, was concerned with the most overt

sort of imposition on the public interest : commercial

interests had obtained advantages which infringed

directly on public uses and promoted private profits.

But the Massachusetts court has also confronted

a more pervasive, if more subtle, problem — that

concerning projects which clearly have some public

justification. Such cases arise when, for example, a

highway department seeks to take a piece of parkland

or to fill a wetland.”

28. In Sacco v. Development of Public Works [532

Mass 670], the Massachusetts Court restrained the

Department of Public Works from filling a great pond

as part of its plan to relocate part of State Highway.

The Department purported to act under the legislative 

270 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

authority. The court found the statutory power inadequate

and held as under :

“the improvement of public lands contemplated by

this section does not include the widening of a State

highway. It seems rather that the improvement of

public lands which the legislature provided for … is

to preserve such lands so that they may be enjoyed

by the people for recreational purposes.”

29. In Robbins v. Deptt. of Public Works [244 NE 2d

577], the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

restrained the Public Works Department from acquiring

Fowl Meadows, “wetlands of considerable natural beauty

… often used for nature study and recreation” for highway

use.

30. Professor Sax in the article (Michigan Law Review)

refers to Priewev v. Wisconsin State Land and Improvement

Co. [93 Wis 534 (1896)], Crawford County Lever and

Drainage Distt. No. 1 [182 Wis 404], City of Milwaukee v.

State [193 Wis 423], State v. Public Service Commission

[275 Wis 112] and opines that “the Supreme Court of

Wisconsin has probably made a more conscientious

effort to rise above rhetoric and to work out a reasonable

meaning for the public trust doctrine than have the courts

of any other State”.

31. Professor Sax stated the scope of the public trust

doctrine in the following words :

“If any of the analysis in this Article makes sense,

it is clear that the judicial techniques developed

in public trust cases need not be limited either to

these few conventional interests or to questions of

disposition of public properties. Public trust problems

are found whenever governmental regulation comes

into question, and they occur in a wide range of

situations in which diffused public interests need

protection against tightly organized groups with clear

and immediate goals. Thus, it seems that the delicate

mixture of procedural and substantive protections 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 271

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

which the courts have applied in conventional public

trust cases would be equally applicable and equally

appropriate in controversies involving air pollution,

the dissemination of pesticides, the location of rights

of way for utilities, and strip mining of wetland filling

on private lands in a State where governmental

permits are required.”

32. We may at this stage refer to the judgment of the

Supreme Court of California in National Audubon Society

v. Superior Court of Alpine County [33 Cal 3d 419]. The

case is popularly known as “the Mono Lake case”. Mono

Lake is the second largest lake in California. The lake is

saline. It contains no fish but supports a large population

of brine shrimp which feed vast numbers of nesting and

migrating birds. Islands in the lake protect a large breeding

colony of California gulls, and the lake itself serves as

a haven on the migration route for thousands of birds.

Towers and spires of tura (sic) on the north and south

shores are matters of geological interest and a tourist

attraction. In 1940, the Division of Water Resources

granted the Department of Water and Power of the City of

Los Angeles a permit to appropriate virtually the entire flow

of 4 of the 5 streams flowing into the lake. As a result of

these diversions, the level of the lake dropped, the surface

area diminished, the gulls were abandoning the lake and

the scenic beauty and the ecological values of Mono Lake

were imperilled. The plaintiffs environmentalist — using

the public trust doctrine — filed a law suit against Los

Angeles Water Diversions. The case eventually came to

the California Supreme Court, on a Federal Trial Judge’s

request for clarification of the State’s public trust doctrine.

The Court explained the concept of public trust doctrine

in the following words :

“‘By the law of nature these things are common

to mankind — the air, running water, the sea and

consequently the shores of the sea.’ (Institutes of

Justinian 2.1.1) From this origin in Roman law, the

English common law evolved the concept of the

public trust, under which the sovereign owns ‘all of 

272 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

its navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath

them as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of

the people.’ ”

The Court explained the purpose of the public trust

as under :

“The objective of the public trust has evolved in

tandem with the changing public perception of the

values and uses of waterways. As we observed

in Marks v. Whitney [6 Cal 3d 251], ‘[p]ublic trust

easements (were) traditionally defined in terms of

navigation, commerce and fisheries. They have been

held to include the right to fish, hunt, bathe, swim, to

use for boating and general recreation purposes the

navigable waters of the State, and to use the bottom

of the navigable waters for anchoring, standing, or

other purposes. We went on, however, to hold that

the traditional triad of uses — navigation, commerce

and fishing — did not limit the public interest in the

trust res. In language of special importance to the

present setting, we stated that ‘[t]he public uses to

which tidelands are subject are sufficiently flexible to

encompass changing public needs. In administering

the trust the State is not burdened with an outmoded

classification favouring one mode of utilization over

another. There is a growing public recognition that

one of the important public uses of the tidelands — a

use encompassed within the tidelands trust — is the

preservation of those lands in their natural state, so

that they may serve as ecological units for scientific

study, as open space, and as environments which

provide food and habitat for birds and marine life,

and which favourably affect the scenery and climate

of the area.’

Mono Lake is a navigable waterway. It supports a

small local industry which harvests brine shrimp for

sale as fish food, which endeavour probably qualifies

the lake as a ‘fishery’ under the traditional public

trust cases. The principal values plaintiffs seek to 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 273

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

protect, however, are recreational and ecological

— the scenic views of the lake and its shore, the

purity of the air, and the use of the lake for nesting

and feeding by birds. Under Marks v. Whitney [6 Cal

3d 251], it is clear that protection of these values is

among the purposes of the public trust.”

The Court summed up the powers of the State as trustee

in the following words :

“Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation

of State power to use public property for public

purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State

to protect the people’s common heritage of streams,

lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that

right of protection only in rare cases when the

abandonment of that right is consistent with the

purposes of the trust….”

The Supreme Court of California, inter alia, reached the

following conclusion :

“The State has an affirmative duty to take the public

trust into account in the planning and allocation of

water resources, and to protect public trust uses

whenever feasible. Just as the history of this State

shows that appropriation may be necessary for efficient

use of water despite unavoidable harm to public trust

values, it demonstrates that an appropriative water

rights system administered without consideration

of the public trust may cause unnecessary and

unjustified harm to trust interests. (See Johnson,

14 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 233, 256-57/; Robie, Some

Reflections on Environmental Considerations in

Water Rights Administration, 2 Ecology L.Q. 695,

710-711 (1972); Comment, 33 Hastings L.J. 653,

654.) As a matter of practical necessity, the State may

have to approve appropriations despite foreseeable

harm to public trust uses. In so doing, however,

the State must bear in mind its duty as trustee to

consider the effect of the taking on the public trust

(see United Plainsmen v. N.D. State Water Cons. 

274 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Comm’n [247 NW 2d 457 (ND 1976)] at pp. 462-463,

and to preserve, so far as consistent with the public

interest, the uses protected by the trust.”

The Court finally came to the conclusion that the

plaintiffs could rely on the public trust doctrine in seeking

reconsideration of the allocation of the waters of the

Mono basin.

33. It is no doubt correct that the public trust doctrine

under the English common law extended only to certain

traditional uses such as navigation, commerce and fishing.

But the American Courts in recent cases have expanded

the concept of the public trust doctrine. The observations

of the Supreme Court of California in Mono Lake case [33

Cal 3d 419] clearly show the judicial concern in protecting

all ecologically important lands, for example fresh water,

wetlands or riparian forests. The observations of the Court

in Mono Lake case [33 Cal 3d 419] to the effect that the

protection of ecological values is among the purposes of

public trust, may give rise to an argument that the ecology

and the environment protection is a relevant factor to

determine which lands, waters or airs are protected by

the public trust doctrine. The Courts in United States

are finally beginning to adopt this reasoning and are

expanding the public trust to encompass new types of

lands and waters. In Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi

[108 SCt 791 (1988)] the United States Supreme Court

upheld Mississippi›s extension of public trust doctrine to

lands underlying non-navigable tidal areas. The majority

judgment adopted ecological concepts to determine which

lands can be considered tide lands. Phillips Petroleum

case [108 SCt 791 (1988)] assumes importance because

the Supreme Court expanded the public trust doctrine to

identify the tide lands not on commercial considerations

but on ecological concepts. We see no reason why the

public trust doctrine should not be expanded to include

all ecosystems operating in our natural resources.

34. Our legal system — based on English common

law — includes the public trust doctrine as part of its 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 275

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural

resources which are by nature meant for public use

and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the

sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically

fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty

to protect the natural resources. These resources meant

for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.

35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this

case illustrate the classic struggle between those members

of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests,

parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those

charged with administrative responsibilities who, under

the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly

complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some

extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to

change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case

is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law

made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts

can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent

in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the

Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the

executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot

abdicate the natural resources and convert them into

private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic

use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the

environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot

be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any

other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith,

for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon

the said resources.”

135. This Court in unequivocal terms has held that the executive

acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the

natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for

commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the

natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our

country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial

or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith,

for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the

said resources.

276 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

136. The law with regard to the importance of the ‘public trust’ doctrine

in ecological/environmental matters has further been evolved and

expanded by this Court in subsequent judgments. In the case of

Association for Environment Protection v. State of Kerala and

others11, this Court has referred to some of the judgments which

followed the law laid down in the case of Kamal Nath (supra),

which are as under :

“6. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [(1999)

6 SCC 464], the Court applied the public trust doctrine

for upholding the order of the Allahabad High Court which

had quashed the decision of Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika

permitting appellant M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. to construct

an underground shopping complex in Jhandewala Park,

Aminabad Market, Lucknow, and directed demolition of

the construction made on the park land. The High Court

had noted that Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika had entered

into an agreement with the appellant for construction

of shopping complex and given it full freedom to lease

out the shops and also to sign agreement on its behalf

and held that this was impermissible. On appeal by the

builders, this Court held that the terms of agreement

were unreasonable, unfair and atrocious. The Court then

invoked the public trust doctrine and held that being a

trustee of the park on behalf of the public, the Nagar

Mahapalika could not have transferred the same to the

private builder and thereby deprived the residents of the

area of the quality of life to which they were entitled under

the Constitution and municipal laws.

7. In Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. [(2006) 3 SCC

549], this Court again invoked the public trust doctrine

in a matter involving the challenge to the systematic

destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water

tanks in Tirupati Town, referred to some judicial precedents

including M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [M.C. Mehta v. Kamal

Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388], M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. [(1999) 6

SCC 464], National Audubon Society [National Audubon

11 [2013] 7 SCR 352 : (2013) 7 SCC 226 : 2013 INSC 413

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 277

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

Society v. Superior Court, 658 P 2d 709 : 33 Cal 3d 419

(1983)] and observed : (Intellectuals Forum case [(2006)

3 SCC 549], SCC p. 575, para 76)

“76. … This is an articulation of the doctrine from the

angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard

to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle,

the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation

of the property held as a public trust. However, when

the State holds a resource that is freely available for

the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of

judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no

matter how consistent with the existing legislations,

that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly

scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts

must make a distinction between the Government›s

general obligation to act for the public benefit, and

the special, more demanding obligation which it may

have as a trustee of certain public resources….”

(emphasis in original)

8. In Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins

[(2009) 3 SCC 571 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 877], this Court

was called upon to consider whether the appellant was

entitled to block the passage to the beach by erecting a

fence in the garb of protecting its property. After noticing

the judgments to which reference has been made

hereinabove, the Court held : (SCC pp. 614-15 & 619,

paras 53-55 & 65)

“53. The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the

Government to protect the resources for the

enjoyment of the general public rather than to

permit their use for private ownership or commercial

purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on

the right of the State to transfer public properties to

private party if such transfer affects public interest,

mandates affirmative State action for effective

management of natural resources and empowers the

citizens to question ineffective management thereof.

278 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

54. The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it

imposes limits and obligations upon government

agencies and their administrators on behalf of all

the people and especially future generations. For

example, renewable and non-renewable resources,

associated uses, ecological values or objects in

which the public has a special interest (i.e. public

lands, waters, etc.) are held subject to the duty of the

State not to impair such resources, uses or values,

even if private interests are involved. The same

obligations apply to managers of forests, monuments,

parks, the public domain and other public assets.

Professor Joseph L. Sax in his classic article, ‘The

Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law :

Effective Judicial Intervention’ (1970), indicates that

the public trust doctrine, of all concepts known to

law, constitutes the best practical and philosophical

premise and legal tool for protecting public rights and

for protecting and managing resources, ecological

values or objects held in trust.

55. The public trust doctrine is a tool for exerting longestablished public rights over short-term public rights

and private gain. Today every person exercising his or

her right to use the air, water, or land and associated

natural ecosystems has the obligation to secure for

the rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that

same resource or property for the long-term and

enjoyment by future generations. To say it another

way, a landowner or lessee and a water right holder

has an obligation to use such resources in a manner

as not to impair or diminish the people›s rights and the

people›s long-term interest in that property or resource,

including downslope lands, waters and resources.

***

65. We reiterate that natural resources including

forests, water bodies, rivers, seashores, etc. are

held by the State as a trustee on behalf of the

people and especially the future generations. These 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 279

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

constitute common properties and people are entitled

to uninterrupted use thereof. The State cannot

transfer public trust properties to a private party, if

such a transfer interferes with the right of the public

and the court can invoke the public trust doctrine

and take affirmative action for protecting the right

of people to have access to light, air and water and

also for protecting rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests

and associated natural ecosystems.”

137. The importance of the doctrine of ‘public trust’ has further been

emphasized in the case of Tata Housing Development Company

Limited v. Aalok Jagga and others12 to which one of us (B.R.

Gavai, J.) was a party.

138. In the present case, it is clear beyond doubt that the then Forest

Minister and Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO considered them to be the

law unto themselves. They have, in blatant disregard of the law

and for commercial purposes, indulged in the illicit felling of trees

on a mass-scale to construct buildings on the pretext of promotion

of tourism. This is a classic case that shows how the politicians

and the bureaucrats have thrown the public trust doctrine in the

dustbin. Though Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO was found to have been

involved in serious irregularities at his earlier postings, and even

though the Authorities had recommended not to post the said officer

at any sensitive post, the then Hon’ble Forest Minister inserted his

name in the proposal relating to transfer and postings at a sensitive

post. Not only that, even after the NTCA found Mr. Kishan Chand,

DFO involved in serious irregularities, and the Secretary (Forests)

recommended placing him under suspension, the then Hon’ble

Forest Minister has not only overruled the recommendation of the

Secretary (Forest) for suspension but also justified his proposed

posting to the Lansdowne Division. It was only after the then Hon’ble

Forest Minister demitted his office, that Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO

could be put under suspension. This is a case that shows how a

nexus between a Politician and a Forest Officer has resulted in

causing heavy damage to the environment for some political and

commercial gain. Even the recommendation of the Senior Officers

12 [2019] 13 SCR 577 : (2020) 15 SCC 784 : 2019 INSC 1203

280 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of the Forest Department, the Vigilance Department, and the Police

Department which objected to his posting at a sensitive post have

been totally ignored. We are amazed at the audacity of the then

Hon’ble Forest Minister and Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO in giving a

total go-bye to the statutory provisions. However, since the matter

is pending investigation by the CBI, we do not propose to comment

any further on the matter.

(e) Concern of the CEC

139. The CEC in its report has also elaborately dealt with the past and

present policy of MoEF&CC in granting the Forest Clearance (FC)

and the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life (SC,

NBWL) clearances to set up zoos and safaris as forestry and nonforestry activities. It is stated that from the perusal of the minutes

of the meeting of the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) held on 17th

February 2021, it would show that, in order to grant clearances under

the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 (“FC Act” for short), zoos were

treated as forestry activity till 2007. However, from 2017 onwards,

it was treated as a non-forestry activity. Thereafter, only 15% of the

total area required for parking and cafeteria, etc. for the setting up

of zoos/safaris was treated as a non-forestry activity. However, the

State is required to get an approval from the MoEF&CC under the

FC Act for the entire area required for the setting up of zoos and

safaris. The Net Present Value (NPV) is being collected only in

respect of 15% of the total area. The CEC therefore observed that

there was a lack of clarity in policy regarding the setting up of zoos

and safaris inside the forest boundary in such a sensitive matter.

140. The CEC has also highlighted various clauses in the NTCA

Guidelines. It has referred to inconsistencies between the 2016

Guidelines and the 2019 Guidelines. We do not want to elaborately

discuss the said issue since we have already referred to the same

in the earlier paragraphs.

141. The CEC has also expressed its concern about the issue that the

location of Tiger Safaris within Tiger Reserve with tigers sourced

from zoos is bound to endanger the population of wild tigers in the

Tiger Reserves.

142. The CEC has further observed that, the Tiger Safaris are not sitespecific activities as confirmed by the MoEF&CC. It also expressed 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 281

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

its opinion that the Tiger Safaris do not have to be necessarily

located within the notified Tiger Reserves, be it buffer or fringe

areas of the Tiger Reserves. It has been stated in the report that

at times the density of the tiger population is higher in the buffer

area as compared to the core area. The concern expressed is that,

by permitting the “zoos bred captive animals” in the buffer or fringe

areas, the possibility of tigers being exposed to pests and diseases

is enhanced. The CEC has also expressed that even the visitors

to the Tiger Safari can be carriers of diseases and pests. It has

recommended that the Tiger Safaris, not being site-specific, are to

be discouraged within the forest areas.

143. The CEC has further expressed that there is a great risk to freeranging animals from zoos/Safaris which have been set up close

to the wildlife-rich protected areas because of epidemiological

reasons. It states that zoonosis, especially of infectious diseases, is

commonly found in zoo/safari animals, including the tigers. It states

that, hundreds of pathogens and many different transmission modes

are involved and many factors influence the epidemiology of the

various such zoonosis. It further states that the risk of such zoonotic

disease transmission drastically increases in any setting where wild

animals are confined in close proximity to humans, including the

public display facilities like zoos and safaris.

144. The report refers to some of the studies in various zoos/Safari Parks,

including Hyderabad Zoo, Jaipur Zoo, Etawah Safari Park, etc.

145. The CEC elaborately refers to various mortalities that occurred in

various zoos in the recent past. The CEC report also refers to the

stand of the NTCA about the in-principle approvals that have been

granted by them for 5 Tiger Safaris in and around the Tiger Reserves

of India. The report states that the NTCA highlighted the following

main advantages/disadvantages in setting up zoos and safaris within

the forest area/protected area/Tiger Reserve :

“Advantages

i. Will help to reduce the pressure from core/critical

tiger habitat area

ii. Will facilitate promotion of conservation education

and livelihood generation

282 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Disadvantages

i. Its an intensive resource use establishment

ii. Clearance/modification of forest area will have to be

resorted to in certain cases.”

146. The CEC also refers to the stand of the CZA with regard to locating

the Tiger Safaris inside the Tiger Reserves. The report states thus :

“55. A. The Central Zoo Authority have supported the

establishment of Tiger Safari inside the Tiger Reserve

stating that :

i. there is need for development of off-display facilities

under fairly undisturbed conditions alongwith

availability of adequate and optimal land and which

may be challenging. Under the given circumstances,

forest land could offer optimal conditions to establish

such facilities;

ii. standards/norms for recognition of Elephant

Rehabilitation/Rescue Centres (ERC) under Section

42 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 recommends

that ERCS should be located, preferably near the

forest areas with access to water body/streams

(F.No.2-5/2006-PE (Vol.II) dated 29.10.2017;

iii. as per provision 2.1.4 of National Zoo Policy, 1998,’….

zoos shall continue to function as rescue centres for

orphaned wild animals, subject to the availability of

appropriate housing and upkeep infrastructure…’.

In consonance with this, Rescue Centres are an

important component of all recognized zoos in the

country. This will therefore aid in the mitigation of

conflict in a particular region (e.g. to ensure that

rescued animals do not have to be transported longdistances/have a better chance at rehabilitation); and

iv. Wildlife Tourism is a thriving sector in India, and

with over 8 crore visitors annually, zoos are in the

forefront of this sector and significantly contribute

to spreading awareness about wildlife conservation.

Most zoos are easily accessible to people, are open 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 283

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

year-round and are relatively economical while

having high impact in spreading wildlife awareness.

This gives zoos an edge over more expensive and

relatively less accessible wilderness area such as

wildlife safaris.

B) The disadvantages of establishment of Tiger Safari

inside Tiger Reserves include

i. clearing of vegetation which could be denser in

forest lands; and

ii. accessibility to forest areas may be limited and hence,

the establishment could be resource intensive.”

147. The CEC also gives its opinion about the impact of the Pakhrau

Tiger Safari on the disbursal of tigers from the Corbett Tiger Reserve.

The CEC in its report opines that it may not be feasible to locate

the Tiger Safaris in the Tiger Reserves including the protected area,

buffer zone, on the fringe area.

148. The report of the CEC as also the reports of various Committees

which were constituted as per the directions of the High Court of

Uttarakhand as well as other authorities would clearly show that

there has been rampant deforestation in the Corbett National Park.

A huge number of trees have been felled thereby causing a heavy

loss to the environment.

149. It is also brought to our notice that in the Ramnagar area as

also in other areas around the Corbett Tiger Reserve, there is a

mushrooming growth of resorts, which are acting as a hindrance to

the free movement of animals including the tigers and elephants. It

is also brought to our notice that similarly, there is a mushrooming

growth of resorts around various Tiger Reserves throughout the

country which are now being used as marriage destinations. It is

brought to our notice that in the said resorts, music is played at a

very loud volume which causes disturbance to the habitat of the

forests. Undisputedly, mushrooming growth of resorts within the close

proximity of the protected areas and uncontrolled activities therein,

including sound pollution are capable of causing great harm to the

ecosystem. We propose to issue certain directions in that regard

in the operative part of our judgment. 

284 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(f) Principle of Ecological Restitution

150. It will be relevant to refer to the Convention on Biological Diversity,

1992 (“CBD” for short), to which India is a signatory. Article 8 of

the CBD pertains to in situ conservation. Under clause (f) thereof,

it requires the contracting parties to, as far as possible and as

appropriate, to rehabilitate and restore the degraded ecosystems

and promote the recovery of threatened species. It reads thus :

(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and

promote the recovery of threatened species, inter alia,

through the development and implementation of plans or

other management strategies.

[emphasis supplied]

151. In the Chorzow Factory Case13, the Permanent Court of International

Justice (PCIJ) laid down the standard in international law for

reparations for the commission of internationally wrongful acts. The

Court held :

“The essential principle contained in the actual notion of

an illegal act – a principle which seems to be established

by international practice and in particular by the decisions

of arbitral tribunals – is that reparation must, as far as

possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal

act and re-establish the situation which would, in

all probability, have existed if that act had not been

committed. Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible,

payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a

restitution in kind would bear; the award, if need be, of

damages for loss sustained which would not be covered

by restitution in kind or payment in place of it -such are the

principles which should serve to determine the amount of

compensation due for an act contrary to international law (…)”

 [emphasis supplied]

152. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), while applying the principle

of restoration of degraded ecosystem in the case of Costa Rica v.

Nicaragua14, has observed thus :

13 The Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), 13 September 1928, PCIJ, Merits, p. 47)

14 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, Compensation Judgment, (2018) I.C.J.

Reports 15

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 285

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

“42. The Court is therefore of the view that damage to the

environment, and the consequent impairment or loss of the

ability of the environment to provide goods and services, is

compensable under international law. Such compensation

may include indemnification for the impairment or loss

of environmental goods and services in the period prior

to recovery and payment for the restoration of the

damaged environment.

43. Payment for restoration accounts for the fact that

natural recovery may not always suffice to return an

environment to the state in which it was before the

damage occurred. In such instances, active restoration

measures may be required in order to return the

environment to its prior condition, in so far as that

is possible.

(…)

53. In determining the compensation due for environmental

damage, the Court will assess, as outlined in paragraph

42, the value to be assigned to the restoration of the

damaged environment as well as to the impairment

or loss of environmental goods and services prior

to recovery.”

(emphasis supplied)

153. While considering the aspect of valuation of environmental restoration

costs to be awarded to Costa Rica, the ICJ observed thus :

“85. (…) with respect to biodiversity services (in terms

of nursery and habitat), the “corrected analysis” does

not sufficiently account for the particular importance of

such services in an internationally protected wetland

where the biodiversity was described to be of high value

by the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention. Whatever

regrowth may occur naturally is unlikely to match in

the near future the pre-existing richness of biodiversity

in the area. Thirdly, in relation to gas regulation and

air quality services, Nicaragua’s “corrected analysis”

does not account for the loss of future annual carbon 

286 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

sequestration (“carbon flows”), since it characterizes

the loss of those services as a one-time loss. The Court

does not consider that the impairment or loss of gas

regulation and air quality services can be valued as a

one-time loss.

86. The Court recalls (…) that the absence of certainty

as to the extent of damage does not necessarily

preclude it from awarding an amount that it considers

approximately to reflect the value of the impairment

or loss of environmental goods and services. In this

case, the Court, while retaining some of the elements of

the “corrected analysis”, considers it reasonable that, for

the purposes of its overall valuation, an adjustment be

made to the total amount in the “corrected analysis” to

account for the shortcomings identified in the preceding

paragraph. The Court therefore awards to Costa Rica

the sum of US$120,000 for the impairment or loss of the

environmental goods and services of the impacted area

in the period prior to recovery.”

(emphasis supplied)

154. This Court also while applying the principle of environmental

restitution in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action

and others v. Union of India and others15 observed thus :

“60. (…) we are of the considered opinion that even if

it is assumed (for the sake of argument) that this Court

cannot award damages against the respondents in these

proceedings that does not mean that the Court cannot direct

the Central Government to determine and recover the

cost of remedial measures from the respondents. Section

3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 expressly

empowers the Central Government (or its delegate, as

the case may be) to “take all such measures as it deems

necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and

improving the quality of environment…”. Section 5 clothes

the Central Government (or its delegate) with the power

15 [1996] 2 SCR 503 : (1996) 3 SCC 212 : 1996 INSC 237

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 287

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

to issue directions for achieving the objects of the Act.

Read with the wide definition of ‘environment’ in Section

2(a), Sections 3 and 5 clothe the Central Government

with all such powers as are “necessary or expedient for

the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the

environment”. The Central Government is empowered to

take all measures and issue all such directions as are called

for for the above purpose. In the present case, the said

powers will include giving directions for the removal

of sludge, for undertaking remedial measures and also

the power to impose the cost of remedial measures

on the offending industry and utilise the amount

so recovered for carrying out remedial measures.

This Court can certainly give directions to the Central

Government/its delegate to take all such measures, if

in a given case this Court finds that such directions are

warranted. (…)

xxx     xxx     xxx

66. (…) it follows, in the light of our findings recorded

hereinbefore, that Respondents 4 to 8 are absolutely

liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to

the villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to

the underground water and hence, they are bound to

take all necessary measures to remove the sludge

and other pollutants lying in the affected area (…) and

also to defray the cost of the remedial measures

required to restore the soil and the underground

water sources. Sections 3 and 4 of Environment

(Protection) Act confers upon the Central Government

the power to give directions of the above nature and

to the above effect. Levy of costs required for carrying

out remedial measures is implicit in Sections 3 and 4

which are couched in very wide and expansive language.

Appropriate directions can be given by this Court to

the Central Government to invoke and exercise those

powers with such modulations as are called for in the

facts and circumstances of this case.”

[emphasis supplied]

288 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

155. In the case of S. Jagannath v. Union of India and others16, this

Court was considering the issue of pollution created by the industry

which had caused harm to the villagers in the affected area, to the

soil and to the underground water. This Court observed thus :

“49. (…) Consequently the polluting industries are

‘absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by

them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the

underground water and hence, they are bound to take all

necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants

lying in the affected areas’. The ‘Polluter Pays Principle’

as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute

liability for harm to the environment extends not

only to compensate the victims of pollution but also

the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.

Remediation of the damaged environment is part

of the process of ‘Sustainable Development’ and as

such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual

sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged

ecology (…).”

[emphasis supplied]

156. It could thus be seen that, 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 CBD

is what is required. At times, the compensatory afforestation permits

forestation at some other site. However, the principle of restoration

of damaged ecosystem would require the States to promote the

recovery of threatened species. We are of the considered view that

the States would be required to take steps for the identification and

effective implementation of active restoration measures that are

localized to the particular ecosystem that was damaged. The focus

has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar as

possible to the specific one that was damaged.

157. No doubt that the CBI is investigating the issue as to who is

responsible for the same. However, the investigation by the CBI

16 [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 848 : (1997) 2 SCC 87 : 1996 INSC 1466

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 289

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

would only lead to finding out the culprits who are responsible for

such huge devastation. The law will take its own course.

158. We find that, bringing the culprits to face the proceedings is a

different matter and restoration of the damage already done is a

different matter. We are of the considered view that 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.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

159. It is well known that the presence of a Tiger in the forest is an indicator

of the well-being of the ecosystem. Unless steps are taken for the

protection of the Tigers, the ecosystem revolving around Tigers

cannot be protected. The figures which are placed before us to show

that there has been a substantial reduction in tiger poaching and

an increase in the tigers’ strength throughout the country. However,

that should not be enough. The ground realities cannot be denied.

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.

160. We therefore requested Shri Chandra Prakash Goyal, former Director

General of Forest, Shri Anup Malik, IFS, PCCF (HoFF), Uttarakhand,

and Dr. Samir Sinha, IFS, PCCF (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden,

Uttarakhand to give their suggestion for more effective management

of the “Tiger Reserves” in India. Accordingly, they have given their

suggestions. No doubt that on some issues there is no coherence

in the suggestions given. They are conflicting and contradictory to

each other. In any event, all three Officers have vast experience

in the Forest Department. Dr. Samir Sinha is a person who has

prepared the TCP for the Corbett Tiger Reserve. Similarly, Shri

Goyal has worked as the Director General of Forest and has also

worked as a Field Director of some of the Tiger Reserves. At the

same time, we are not experts in the field. We therefore find that

it will be appropriate that 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. 

290 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

161. We therefore find that 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, we direct the State

of Uttarakhand 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 we are directing to be appointed would

also be applicable to the existing Safaris including the Safari

to be established at Pakhrau.

B. The 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 CEC; and

(iv) an officer of the MoEF&CC not below the rank of Joint

Secretary as its Member Secretary.

We however clarify that the Committee would be entitled to

co-opt any other authority including a representative of 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. Needless to state that 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. 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 291

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

(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 :

(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

anthropocentrism;

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.

Needles to state that the aforesaid factors are only some

of the factors to be taken into consideration and the

Committee 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

prohibited in the buffer zone and fringe areas of the Tiger

Reserve. While doing so, if tourism is to be promoted,

it has to be eco-tourism. 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

restriction to be imposed on such resorts so that they 

292 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

are managed 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

protected 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.

(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. We will consider issuing appropriate directions after the

recommendations are received by this Court from the aforesaid

Committee. We request the Committee 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. We request the learned ASG to

communicate this order to the Director, CBI.

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.

162. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered

by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned

Senior Counsel, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, applicant-in-person.

However, we will be failing in our duty if we do not make a special

mention of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. K. Parameshwar,

learned Amicus Curiae. His in-depth research and meticulous 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 293

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

In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal

formulations have immensely assisted us in deciding this issue,

which is of paramount importance to environmental and ecological

justice. We direct the State of Uttarakhand to pay an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh) to Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned

Amicus Curiae, as honorarium.

163. The matter is stand over for Twelve (12) weeks.

Headnotes prepared by : Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Result of the case :

Directions issued.