LAW FOR ALL : Application for Intervention is allowed. 1. We have been called upon to decide the necessity of a second home for Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica), an endangered species, for its long term survival and to protect the species from extinction as issue rooted on eco-centrism, which supports the protection of all wildlife forms, not just those which are of instrumental value to humans but those which have intrinsic worth.= Cheetah to Kuno- We notice that while the matter was being heard, a decision has been made by MoEF to import African Cheetahs from Namibia to India and to introduce the same at Kuno. Amicus Curiae filed I.A. No. 3452 of 2012. This Court granted a stay on 8.5.2012 of the decision of MoEF to import the Cheetahs from Namibia to India for introducing them to Kuno. Serious objections have been raised by the Amicus Curiae Shri P.S. Narasimha against the introduction of foreign species at Kuno. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that the decision to introduce African Cheetahs into the same proposed habitat chosen for re-introduction of Asiatic lion has not been either placed before the Standing Committee of NBWL, nor has there been a consistent decision. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that IUCN Guidelines on translocation clearly differentiated between introduction and re-introduction.= We may indicate that our top priority is to protect Asiatic lions, an endangered species and to provide a second home. Various steps have been taken for the last few decades, but nothing transpired so far. Crores of rupees have been spent by the Government of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh for re- introduction of Asiatic lion to Kuno. At this stage, in our view, the decision taken by MoEF for introduction of African cheetahs first to Kuno and then Asiatic lion, is arbitrary an illegal and clear violation of the statutory requirements provided under the Wildlife Protection Act. The order of MoEF to introduce African Cheetahs into Kuno cannot stand in the eye of Law and the same is quashed. - MoEF’s decision for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir to Kuno is that of utmost importance so as to preserve the Asiatic lion, an endangered species which cannot be delayed. Reintroduction of Asiatic lion, needless to say, should be in accordance with the guidelines issued by IUCN and with the active participation of experts in the field of re-introduction of endangered species. MoEF is therefore directed to take urgent steps for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir forests to Kuno. MoEF has to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of senior officials of MoEF, Chief Wildlife Wardens of the States of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. Technical experts should also be the members of the Committee, which will include the Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of WWF. Dr. Y.S. Jhala, senior scientist with Wildlife Institute of India, Dr. Ravi Chellam, senior scientist, Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh, since all of them had done lot of research in that area and have national and international exposure. Any other expert can also be co-opted as the members of the Committee. Needless to say, the number of lions to be re-introduced would depend upon the density of prey base and other related factors, which the Committee will assess. I.A. is allowed as mentioned above. The order be carried out in its letter and spirit and within a period of 6 months from today. We record our deep appreciation for the assistance rendered by all the senior counsel and learned amicus curiae Shri P.S. Narasimha and also Dr. Ravi Chellam who was present in the Court throughout and made valuable suggestions with regard to the various environmental and scientific issues. We are also inclined to highlight the necessity of an exclusive parliamentary legislation for the preservation and protection of endangered species so as to carry out the recovery programmes before many of the species become extinct and to give the following directions: (a) NWAP (2002-2016) has already identified species like the Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Dugong, the Manipur Brow Antlered Deer, over and above Asiatic Lion and Wild Buffalo as endangered species and hence we are, therefore, inclined to give a direction to the Government of India and the MoEF to take urgent steps for the preservation of those endangered species as well as to initiate recovery programmes. (b) The Government of India and the MoEF are directed to identify, as already highlighted by NWAP, all endangered species of flora and fauna, study their needs and survey their environs and habitats to establish the current level of security and the nature of threats. They should also conduct periodic reviews of flora and fauna species status, and correlate the same with the IUCN Red Data List every three years. (c) Courts and environmentalists should pay more attention for implementing the recovery programmes and the same be carried out with imagination and commitment

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Application for Intervention is allowed. 1. We have been called upon to decide the necessity of a second home for Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica), an endangered species, for its long term survival and to protect the species from extinction as issue rooted on eco-centrism, which supports the protection of all wildlife forms, not just those which are of instrumental value to humans but those which have intrinsic worth.= Cheetah to Kuno- We notice that while the matter was being heard, a decision has been made by MoEF to import African Cheetahs from Namibia to India and to introduce the same at Kuno. Amicus Curiae filed I.A. No. 3452 of 2012. This Court granted a stay on 8.5.2012 of the decision of MoEF to import the Cheetahs from Namibia to India for introducing them to Kuno. Serious objections have been raised by the Amicus Curiae Shri P.S. Narasimha against the introduction of foreign species at Kuno. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that the decision to introduce African Cheetahs into the same proposed habitat chosen for re-introduction of Asiatic lion has not been either placed before the Standing Committee of NBWL, nor has there been a consistent decision. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that IUCN Guidelines on translocation clearly differentiated between introduction and re-introduction.= We may indicate that our top priority is to protect Asiatic lions, an endangered species and to provide a second home. Various steps have been taken for the last few decades, but nothing transpired so far. Crores of rupees have been spent by the Government of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh for re- introduction of Asiatic lion to Kuno. At this stage, in our view, the decision taken by MoEF for introduction of African cheetahs first to Kuno and then Asiatic lion, is arbitrary an illegal and clear violation of the statutory requirements provided under the Wildlife Protection Act. The order of MoEF to introduce African Cheetahs into Kuno cannot stand in the eye of Law and the same is quashed. - MoEF’s decision for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir to Kuno is that of utmost importance so as to preserve the Asiatic lion, an endangered species which cannot be delayed. Reintroduction of Asiatic lion, needless to say, should be in accordance with the guidelines issued by IUCN and with the active participation of experts in the field of re-introduction of endangered species. MoEF is therefore directed to take urgent steps for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir forests to Kuno. MoEF has to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of senior officials of MoEF, Chief Wildlife Wardens of the States of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. Technical experts should also be the members of the Committee, which will include the Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of WWF. Dr. Y.S. Jhala, senior scientist with Wildlife Institute of India, Dr. Ravi Chellam, senior scientist, Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh, since all of them had done lot of research in that area and have national and international exposure. Any other expert can also be co-opted as the members of the Committee. Needless to say, the number of lions to be re-introduced would depend upon the density of prey base and other related factors, which the Committee will assess. I.A. is allowed as mentioned above. The order be carried out in its letter and spirit and within a period of 6 months from today. We record our deep appreciation for the assistance rendered by all the senior counsel and learned amicus curiae Shri P.S. Narasimha and also Dr. Ravi Chellam who was present in the Court throughout and made valuable suggestions with regard to the various environmental and scientific issues. We are also inclined to highlight the necessity of an exclusive parliamentary legislation for the preservation and protection of endangered species so as to carry out the recovery programmes before many of the species become extinct and to give the following directions: (a) NWAP (2002-2016) has already identified species like the Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Dugong, the Manipur Brow Antlered Deer, over and above Asiatic Lion and Wild Buffalo as endangered species and hence we are, therefore, inclined to give a direction to the Government of India and the MoEF to take urgent steps for the preservation of those endangered species as well as to initiate recovery programmes. (b) The Government of India and the MoEF are directed to identify, as already highlighted by NWAP, all endangered species of flora and fauna, study their needs and survey their environs and habitats to establish the current level of security and the nature of threats. They should also conduct periodic reviews of flora and fauna species status, and correlate the same with the IUCN Red Data List every three years. (c) Courts and environmentalists should pay more attention for implementing the recovery programmes and the same be carried out with imagination and commitment

Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. No. 100
In
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 337 OF 1995
Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I .. Applicants
Versus
Union of India & Others .. Respondents
WITH
IA No.3452 in WP(C) No.202 of 1995
J U D G M E N T
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
Application for Intervention is allowed.
1. We have been called upon to decide the necessity of a
second home for Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica), an
Page 2
2
endangered species, for its long term survival and to protect the
species from extinction as issue rooted on eco-centrism, which
supports the protection of all wildlife forms, not just those which
are of instrumental value to humans but those which have
intrinsic worth.
FACTS:
2. The Wildlife Institute of India (for short ‘WII’), an autonomous
institution under the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for
short ‘MoEF’), Government of India, through its wildlife Biologists had done considerable research at the Gir Forest in the State of Gujarat since 1986. All those studies were geared to provide data which would help for the better management of the Gir forest and enhance the prospects for the long term conservation of lions at Gir, a single habitat of Asiatic lion in the world. The data collected by the Wildlife Biologists highlighted the necessity of a second natural habitat for its long term conservation. Few of the scientists had identified the Asiatic lions as a prime candidate for a re-introduction project to ensure its long term survival.
In
Page 3
3
October 1993, a Population and Habitat Analysis Workshop was
held at Baroda, Gujarat. Various issues came for consideration in
that meeting and the necessity of a second home for Asiatic lions
was one of the issues deliberated upon in that meeting. Three
alternative sites for re-introduction of Asiatic lions were suggested
for an intensive survey, the details of which are given below:
1. Darrah-Jawaharsagar Wildlife Sanctuary (Rajasthan)
2. Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary (Rajasthan)
3. Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh)
3. The Research Advisory Committee of WII recognized the
need for a prior survey to assess the potential of those sites.
Accordingly, a field survey was conducted. Surveys of the three
sites were made during winter as well as summer, to assess water
availability during the summer and also to ascertain the changes
in human impact on the habitat during the seasons. The
surveyors concentrated on ascertaining the extent of forest area
in and adjoining the chosen protected areas with the aim of
establishing the contiguity of the forested habitat. Attempts
were also made to establish the relative abundance of wild
Page 4
4
ungulate prey in the three sites based on direct sightings as well
as on indirect evidence. An assessment of the impact on the
people and their livestock on habitat quality in all three sites was
also made. Of the three sites surveyed, Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary
(for short ‘Kuno’) was found to be the most suitable site for reintroduction in establishing a free ranging population of Asiatic
lions. A draft report to that effect was prepared by eminent
Scientists like Ravi Chellam, Justus Joshwa, Christy A. Williams
and A. J. T. Johnsingh on behalf of WII. The report revealed that
the Kuno was a historical distribution range of Asiatic lions.
Report also highlighted the necessity of a long term commitment
of resources, personnel, the necessity of a comprehensive
rehabilitation package, adequate staff and facilities. Committee
did not consider the presence of tigers in Kuno to be a major
limiting factor, especially since the tigers occur in such low
numbers and density. Since lions live in stable social units,
report highlighted that it is important to take lions for the
translocation also from a single pride. Further, it was also
pointed out that genetic consideration would not be a major
factor, provided fresh male lions are moved from Gir to KunoPage 5
5
every three to five years and the resident males in Kuno
selectively captured for Zoos.
4. State of Madhya Pradesh then undertook a massive
rehabilitation package for the villagers settled in and near Kuno
so as to push forward the scheme of relocation of Asiatic lions in
Kuno. It was noticed that about 1545 families of 24 revenue
villages were living inside Kuno and they had to be rehabilitated
outside the sanctuary. Since suitable and sufficient revenue land
was not available in adjoining areas, it was decided to relocate
those villages on degraded protected forests. Since proposed site
of resettlement fell in various blocks of protected forest, the use
as a rehabilitation purpose involved a legal obligation to obtain
prior sanction from MoEF under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.
5. The Secretary (Forests), Government of Madhya Pradesh,
therefore, sent a letter dated 24.7.1996 to MoEF seeking final
approval of the Central Government in accordance with the ForestPage 6
6
(Conservation) Act, 1980. MoEF, after examining the request of
the State of Madhya Pradesh, conveyed its approval under
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of
3720.9 hectare of forest land for rehabilitation of 18 villages
located inside the Kuno, subject to fulfillment of certain
conditions. Out of 3720.9 hectare of the 13-forest compartments,
3395.9 hectare forest area of 12 compartments was finally
approved by the Government of India for de-notification.
Compartment No. P-442 of Umarikaia forest block was left out
from the original proposal by Government of India letter dated
1.2.2000 and hence, the released area in first phase had been denotified after due permission from the Government of India.
Forest area of 1263.9 hectare released in the second phase could
not be de-notified for want of permission from the Government of
India. The Government of India constituted a Monitoring
Committee for the effective implementation of the Asiatic Lion
Reintroduction Project at Kuno which met on 10.3.2004. The
Survey report of WII was discussed in the meeting and it was
noticed that Kuno Paipur Sanctuary of M.P. was identified as thePage 7
7
project site/and a 20 year project was conceived in three phases
as below:
a.Phase I (1995-2000 A.D.) Village relocation and habitat
development.
b.Phase II (2000-2005) Fencing at the side, translocation,
research and monitoring.
c.Phase III (2005-2015) Eco-development.
It was pointed out in the meeting that, currently, the project was
in Phase II and 18 villages had been rehabilitated from Kuno.
Further, in the meeting, the Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat had,
however, opined that there was no commitment on the part of the
State of Gujarat for providing lions and the State Government had
not agreed for the same. Based on the discussion, the Chairman
summed up the consensus which emerged out of the
deliberations as follows:
1. A letter from MOS, MoEF should be sent to the Chief Minister of
Gujarat, highlighting the project justification with a request to
provide lions for translocation to Kuno Palpur Sanctuary.Page 8
8
2. State of Gujarat should be provided with a set of project
documents.
3. The Chief Wildlife Warden, MP should prepare a road map with
a final detail for translocation of lions from Gir to Kuno.
4. An assessment of prey base in Kuno should be done by WII.
5. No further expenditure should be incurred with a focus on lion;
however, funding support for habitat improvement/welfare
initiatives for other wild animals can continue.
6. The scheme for rehabilitation of villagers was prepared by
the centrally sponsored “Beneficiary-oriented Scheme for Tribal
Development”. It was stated in the scheme that a total of more
than Rs.1545 lacs would be required for the satisfactory relocation of 1545 families of 24 villages out of the limit of Kuno.
Out of 1545 lacs, 1061 lacs had been spent on relocation process.
Balance 484 lacs were required to be released for the remaining
rehabilitation works. The Chief Wildlife Warden, M.P. had certified
the said expenditure.Page 9
9
7. WII, in the meantime, had made a detailed assessment of
prey population for lion re-location in Kuno. It was noticed that
since re-location of villages from Kuno was complete, Government
of M.P. was keen to assess the prey base in the sanctuary so as to
plan obtaining lions from Gujarat for re-introduction as early as
possible. For the said purpose, the task of evaluating for wild
prey base was entrusted to WII. Consequently, the faculty from
WII, with the help of 34 forest staff, had undertaken the study of
ungulates in Kuno under the guidance of Dr. Raghu Chundawat
and carried out the prey assessment exercise from 2.1.2005 to
8.1.2005 and 8.2.2005 to 13.2.2005. A report was filed in June
2006 (July 2006). The Minister of MoEF sent a letter dated
20.7.2006 to the Chief Minister of Gujarat for translocation of two
numbers of lions to Kuno. The Chief Minister of Gujarat vide his
letter dated 30.4.2006 replied stating that the matter had been
placed before the concerned department for further views. But
nothing had been transpired in spite of the fact that crores and
crores of rupees were spent by the Government of India for relocation of villages, de-notifying the reserve forest and so on
which led to the filing of this public interest litigation seeking aPage 10
10
direction to the respondents to implement the re-location
programme as recommended by WII, and approved by the
Government of India.
8. The Minister for Tribal Welfare, Forests and Environment,
Government of Gujarat vide his D.O. letter dated 18.8.2007 had
indicated that it was not possible for the State Government to
agree to the proposal for creation of a second home at Kuno in
Madhya Pradesh for Asiatic Lions. When the matter came up for
consideration before this Court on 30.11.2007 and this Court
passed the following order:
“There was a proposal for translocation of some of
the Asiatic Lions found in the Gir National Park to a
forest in Madhya Pradesh. The State of Gujarat has
raised certain objections. The State of Madhya Pradesh
wants to file its response…… The proposal is directed
to be submitted to the National Board for Wildlife.
NBWL may consider the objections of State of Gujarat
and response of Madhya Pradesh and submit is
recommendation in this court in four months.”
9. NBWL then convened a meeting on 18.2.2008 under the
Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister of State for Forests and Wildlife.Page 11
11
The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat informed the Board about the
various steps taken by the State Government for providing
protection to Lions and their habitat and submitted as follows:
a) That Kuno Palpur has a population of 6 to 8 tigers and coexistence of large cats of almost equal size was unlikely.
b) That Lions world over are known to prefer grasslands in subtopical to near sub-tropical climates with normal
temperature during hot period below 42 degree C. (approx)
while Kuno is known to have hot climate during summer with
temperature exceeding 45 degree C. for a number of days.
c) The prey base at Kuno is also not adequate enough for the
lions.
d) Lions are increasing in number and geographical distribution
in vicinity of Gir in Amreli & Bhavnagar districts. This is a
natural increase in home range of lions, which is well
received by local population. Besides, Gir National Park and
Gir-Paniya-Mithiyal Sanctuary and Devalia Interpretation
Park, lions have made home in Girnar, grasslands of
Savarkundla, Palitana and Mahuva hills and in the coastalPage 12
12
region of Jafrabad and Rajula in Amreli districts, Mahuva and
Palitana talukas of Bhavnagar district.
e) The Barda Sanctuary area is being effectively prepared as
home for lion with vegetation having improved while spotted
deer are introduced.
f) The natural expansion of home range being the effective
way of establishing natural Meta population that infrequently
interact among populations located at different places in Gir
region. Thus effectively isolated populations which may still
received genetic inputs from the base populations are
establishing, providing efficient method of conservation.
g) During the year 2007-2008, Government of Gujarat has
launched a special programme for conservation of lion with
the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Gujarat announcing a five year
action plan package of Rs.40 crore for lion conservation
which includes increase in protection force, habitat
management, raising awareness to enlist people’s
participation etc.Page 13
13
10. The Chairman, NBWL then sought the opinion of the
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the points raised by the Chief
Wildlife Warden, Gujarat.
11. The Additional PCCF (WL), Government of Madhya Pradesh
informed that the Kuno was waiting for the release of lions from
Gujarat and that the Madhya Pradesh Government had taken all
the necessary measures to make Kuno the ideal second home for
the lions. Further, it was pointed out that the State had already
relocated 24 villages from the sanctuary for the said purpose.
Further, it was pointed out that Kuno was suggested as a second
home for lions after due scientific studies conducted by WII and
the Kuno had posed no threat to the conservation of lions.
Further, it was also pointed out that the prey base was in plenty
in Kuno and he requested that the lions be translocated to Kuno
at the earliest.
12. Dr. Asad Rehmani, Director, Bombay Natural History Society
and member of the Standing Committee pointed out that sporadicPage 14
14
presence of tiger in Kuno was in no case detrimental to reintroduction of lions. Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda, member of the
Standing Committee had also emphasized the fact that there was
a need to create a second home for lions. Dr. Chavda cited an
example of the death of large number of lions in the Serengeti
National Park at Tanzania and other areas in Africa due to
epidemics. Dr. Chavda cautioned, it could happen at Gir as well.
Rest of the members of the Standing Committee also supported
the decision for translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno. The
Standing Committee of NBWL recorded that it was unanimously
recommended for translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno.
13. The State of Gujarat filed a detailed affidavit before this
Court on 4.4.2009 stating that the State had objected to the
translocation of lions and that the decision of the Standing
Committee was not unanimous. Further, it was also pointed out
that there was no sufficient prey base at Kuno so as to receive
lions. Page 15
15
14. This Court, after perusing the affidavit filed by the States of
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh as well as MoEF, again passed an order
dated 22.4.2009 directing NBWL to have a fresh look on the
subject and file a report. It was also ordered that NBWL should
hear both the States, if necessary before filing the report. The
additional affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat was also placed
for consideration before NBWL in its meeting held on 17.7.2009.
In that meeting, the Chief Wildlife Warden and the Principal
Secretary (Forests) were present on behalf of the State of Gujarat.
After detailed discussion, the Standing Committee of NBWL had
unanimously decided to have an in-house technical discussion on
the subject before taking a final view. The technical discussion
was, therefore, held during the 16th meeting of the Standing
Committee which was convened on 16.9.2009. In that meeting,
the representatives of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
(Additional Chief Secretary and Chief Wildlife Warden),
Government of Gujarat (Principal Secretary – Forest and Chief
Wildlife Warden) along with non-official members of the Standing
Committee of National Board of Wildlife were also present duringPage 16
16
the discussions. The following decisions were taken in the
technical discussion held on 16.9.2009:
“TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE
TRANSLOCATION OF ASIATIC LION FROM GIR TO KUNO
PALPUR
It was followed by discussion on Agenda Item No.4
Member Secretary apprised the Committee that
during the last meeting it was decided to have detailed
technical discussion on the issue of translocation of
lions to Madhya Pradesh (M.P.) in Kuno Palpur
Sanctuary. Chairman observed that the issue is not
mere translocation of lions from Gujarat to M.P. but also
the long term viability of survival of the translocated
lions. He also pointed out that in past lions have been
translocated in M.P. as well as in U.P. unsuccessfully.
Further, at present tiger conservation in M.P. also
requires focused efforts on the part of the State
Government. Under these circumstances any decision
for translocation of lions needs to be taken very
carefully after judicious consultations.
Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda informed that in the
previous instances of lion’s translocation in both the
cases, lions were hunted because they became cattle
lifters and caused acute lion-man conflict in the
introduced areas as the introduced areas were small
and devoid of adequate prey based. However, this is
not the present case. At present hunting is legally
banned and proposed introduction area is not only
having enough prey base but also devoid of human
population. CWLW, M.P. also informed that Kuno Palpur
Sanctuary could accommodate even 60 lions as there
was about 900 sq. Km of buffer area around the
Sanctuary. There was enough prey base as per the
survey of the State Forest Department. The additional
Chief Secretary, Govt of M.P. submitted that the issuePage 17
17
was not between the two States but was survival of
lions and it needs to be provided an alternative home
outside 8the Gujarat State. More than Rs.34.00 crores
have already been spent on the project. In case wild
lions are not available, zoo bred lions could be
introduced in the identified area following soft release
as has been proposed in past. Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh was
of the opinion that introduction of zoo bred or captive
bred lions in the wild were not correct approach. The
only solution was to introduce wild population of lions.
Dr. Asad Rahmani also supported these views of Dr
Ranjitsinh.
While elaborating the issue of introduction of
captive bred lions, Director, WII informed that
introduction of such animals in wild is a long drawn
process involving 6-12 years. Only filial-2 or filial-3 of
the captive bred population could be introduced in wild
through soft release and it would require strict
monitoring with scientific inputs at all levels supported
with strong political, administrative and financial
commitments. Member Secretary pointed out that
Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred this issue to the
Standing Committee with particular reference to
additional affidavit filed by Gujarat State Government.
Chairman desired that Ministry could prepare a draft
response in the matter and get it circulated amongst
the members of the Standing Committee and after
incorporating their views, a decision on the response to
be filed before the Hon’ble Court would be taken. It
was also desired that this draft should be circulated
within one month among all the members. Chairman
also observed that ministry may restart the earlier
approved programme of soft release of captive bred
lions in Kunopalpur.”Page 18
18
15. The Standing Committee of NBWL then met on 22.12.2009,
perused the report of the Technical Committee and made the
following observations:
“It is submitted that in view of the above
background, the following are the observation of the
Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife on
the issue of translocation of lion from Gujarat to
Madhya Pradesh:
3.1 The population of Asiatic Lions in India has
been restricted to its habitat in the Gir National Park
and Gir Sanctuary alone, where they face threats due to
man-animal conflict, outbreak of possible epidemic or
any natural calamity, etc. Such actions may wipe out
the whole population. The need for a second home for
the Asiatic Lions was therefore felt and accordingly,
based on habitat feasibility studies by the Wildlife
Institute of India in various Protected Areas and forests
of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, three
different sites were finally studied in greater detail out
of which Kuno Palpur sanctuary in Morena District of
Madhya Pradesh was found most suitable for reintroduction and establishing a second free ranging
population of Asiatic Lion outside Gir.
3.2 The contention of the Government of Gujarat
that the Lions would not be able to survive in Kuno
Palpur due to its extreme climatic conditions is not true.
It may be mentioned here that the lions have thrived in
extreme climate from the deserts of Palestine and
Arabia to the cold coniferous forest in Iran in historical
times. They were destroyed not by climate, but by the
human action. Lions exist and survive in a variety of
habitats with varied prey densities, temperatures and
vegetation communities across their range, and while
the overall prey densities of Gir are in the higher rangePage 19
19
of lion densities while that of Kuno are in the medium to
low density areas of lions, the natural prey densities in
Kuno are significantly higher than the natural prey
densities in areas in south Saurashtra outside the Gir
where Lions have now taken residence and where the
State Government wishes to retain them. It was fro
these “outlying” Lion populations outside of the Gir that
translocation to Kuno Palpur was planned. Therefore, it
would be unreasonable to compare Kuno prey densities
with that of Gir and then come to a conclusion that
Kuno is unsuitable habitat for lions. It is well within the
lion range of habitats and prey densities currently.
3.3 The Government of Gujarat, vide para 11 of
the additional affidavit, had stated that the wildlife
Institute of India has used simple logistic model for
projections and predictions, while presenting population
growth of wild ungulates. This contention of the
Government of Gujarat is not appropriate. In fact,
models are abstractions of reality – Simplistic Models
have general applications and fewer assumptions.
Complex models represent specific ecosystems more
realistically but are extremely data intensive. Data
needed for models like the one suggested by the
Government of Gujarat is not available for most
populations in India and therefore remain there
academic exercises. Model outcomes/recommendations
should not be followed blindly. In any case, an
evaluation of prey densities should be done again prior
to the proposed reintroduction of lions and the
reintroduction schedule/plan appropriately modified to
be in tune with the realized rate of increase by prey
populations of Kuno. It is part of the original plan and
in any case, as noted above, the natural prey densities
in Kuno are higher than in areas where Lions have
taken residence outside of Gir in Gujarat and where
they live mainly by preying on livestock.
3.4 The Gir lions have passed through two bottle
necks on about 1 to 4 thousand years ago and anotherPage 20
20
about 150-200 years ago and are therefore highly
inbred. The reintroduction effort does not end with the
introduction of a pride of lions into Kuno. A continued
program of exchange/supplementation of individual
lions between Gir and Kuno is needed at the rate of 2-3
lions per generation. This supplementation needs to
continue till the Kuno lion population Gene pool nears
that of Gir lions. It is envisaged that such exchanges to
last for a minimum duration of 25-30 years but would
benefit from continued exchanges over a longer time
scale. The Kuno and Gir populations could be
managed as a meta-population that would provide
demographic as well as genetic benefits to the Gir lion
population as well.
3.5 The contention of Government of Gujarat that
translocation of Lions made in earlier occasion during
early 20th century and during 1956, especially to the
Chandraprabha Wildlife Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh was
unsuccessful and therefore the present translocation
also would not yield much results is not correct. The
reason being that in the previous instances of Lion’s
translocation, lions were hunted because they became
cattle lifters and caused acute lion-man conflict in the
introduced areas as the introduced areas were small
and devoid of adequate prey base and burdened with
human population. However, this is not the present
case. At present hunting is legally banned and
proposed introduction area is not only having enough
prey base but also devoid of human population.
Further there are better scientific inputs, full
commitment on the part of State Government of
Madhya Pradesh and required home work has been
done. Therefore, present relocation is not comparable
with earlier efforts.
3.6 The issue of poaching is vital. The
Government of Gujarat has dealt with it quite well.
Poaching will continue to be a threat as long as there is
a demand for lion0tiger parts. In the Kuno area also thePage 21
21
management have to be much more vigilant with
regard to poaching. Further, there is also a need for a
collective action by the Central Government, State
Governments along with a strong political and
bureaucratic commitment as well as full and dedicated
support of technocrats and scientists for better and
long term conservation of such a species of national
pride and what was once Indi’s National Animal.
3.7 The objective of the Government of India is to
conserve Asiatic lions for posterity and this effort does
not end by mere introduction of a lion pride to Kuno. It
would be imperative that Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh
work together in designing a Meta-population
management plan based on genetic and demographic
data of the Asiatic lions to ensure that this objective is
met. Without this cooperative approach, lion
conservation objective of the Nation/World will not be
met.
In view of the aforesaid, it is recommended that
the translocation of lions from Gir area to an alternate
area, presently to the Kuno-Palpur Sanctuary, is the
necessity of the hour essential for conservation of lions
for posterity. As mentioned above, the efforts for
conservation of lions would not stop by mere
translocation efforts, but it would continue through the
active involvement of all the stakeholders.”
16. The Standing Committee then authorized the MoEF to file an
affidavit to that effect before this Court. Accordingly, an affidavit
was filed before this Court by MoEF on 7.1.2010. State of Gujarat
also filed a detailed affidavit on 12.11.2010. In its affidavit, thePage 22
22
State of Gujarat highlighted the insufficiency of prey base at Kuno
and the presence of tigers in the occupied area at Kuno as the
major limiting factors. Further, it was also pointed out that the
current Asiatic lion population is not a single population confined
to one place but consists of meta-population spread over several
locations within the Greater Gir Region and that good
conservation practices and intensive wild life health care, has
lead to epidemic free regime over generations of wildlife including
Asiatic Lion in the area.
17. The State of Gujarat took up the stand that, though the issue
was discussed by the Standing Committee of NBWL, it had not
been placed before the State Board for Wildlife (Gujarat), which is
a statutory requirement under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. This
Court, therefore, on 27.2.2012, directed the State Board to
consider the issue of lions’ translocation and to submit its report.
Accordingly, the matter was placed before the State Board. The
State Board took the view that there was no threat to Asiatic Lion
in the Gir forest from epidemic diseases or other such factors. It
was pointed out that the present Asiatic lion population has risen
from a broad based and a reasonably good population has beenPage 23
23
achieved. Further, it was pointed out that previous attempts for
translocation from Gujarat were also a failure and since the
Greater Gir region being an ideal preservation and conservation
for Asiatic lions, there is no necessity of finding out a second
home for Asiatic lion at Kuno.
ARGUMENTS:
18. We heard Shri Raj Panjwani, learned senior counsel
appearing for the applicant, who submitted that this 20-year
project is hanging on fire due to the indifferent attitude of the
Gujarat Government. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
necessity of re-introduction of Asiatic lion at Kuno has been
keenly felt and the scientific world has unanimously advocated for
translocation of this endangered species to Kuno for its long term
survival and preservation. Learned senior counsel pointed out
that NBWL, the expert technical body at more than one occasions
has approved and granted technical sanction to go ahead with the
project, but could not pick up expected momentum due to the
indifferent and defiant attitude of the State of Gujarat. Page 24
24
19. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing for the
State of Madhya Pradesh, highlighted the steps taken by the State
of Madhya Pradesh for pushing the project forward. Learned
counsel referred to the various counter affidavits filed by the
State of Madhya Pradesh for completing the first phase of the
project. Necessary sanction has already been obtained to declare
Kuno as Sanctuary under the Wildlife Protection Act. MoEF has
already granted its approval under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act for diversion of 3395.9 hectare of forest land
for the rehabilitation of eighteen villages located inside Kuno,
subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The area at Kuno was
increased to 1268.861 Sq. Km in April 2002 by creating a
separate Kuno Wildlife Division. For the above purpose, a total
amount of Rs.1545 lakh had been granted by the Government of
India and utilized by the State Government. Learned counsel also
pointed out that altogether 24 villages and 1543 families were
relocated outside Kuno by the year 2002-2003 and the lands
abandoned by them have been developed into grass lands.
20. Learned counsel also pointed out that prey density at Kuno
has far exceeded the prey density at Gir. Reference was made toPage 25
25
the Prey Density Survey conducted during 2004-2005 by Mr. Fiaz
A. Khudsar and Mr. Raman in the year 2008. Firstly, it was
pointed out that WII had also conducted an independent study in
the year 2012, which also supported the stand taken by the State
of Madhya Pradesh that there is sufficient prey base to receive
sufficient numbers of lions. Over and above, adequate training
has also been given to the forest staff, guards etc. for receiving
the lions and for their upkeep and monitoring.
21. Shri P. K. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General,
submitted that the population of Asiatic lion is increasing at Gir,
but there are conceivable threats to their survival; man-made,
natural calamity as well as outbreak of epidemic, which may wipe
out the entire population, due to their small population base and
limited geographical area of spread. It is under such
circumstances, the need for a second home for lions was felt, for
which Kuno was found to be the most suitable habitat. However,
it was pointed out that the lions could be translocated only if
sufficient number of ungulates is available and after taking
effective measures, such as, control of poaching, grasslandPage 26
26
management, water management, building rubble wall around
the division etc. Learned senior counsel made reference to the
study conducted by the experts of WII and Wildlife Trust of India
of the programme of re-introduction of Cheetah in Kuno, on
import from Namibia. Referring to the correspondence between
the Ministry of State (External Affairs) and Chief Minister of
Madhya Pradesh, it was pointed out that subsequent reintroduction of lions is in no way expected to affect the cheetah
population, which would have established in the area, by that
time.
22. Shri P. S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel and learned
Amicus Curiae apprised the court of the extreme urgency for the
protection of the Asiatic lion which has been included in the Red
List published by the International Union for Conservation of
Natgure (IUCN) as critically endangered species, endorsed by
NBWL in various meetings. NBWL, being the highest scientific
statutory body, it commands respect and its opinion is worthy of
acceptance by the MoEF and all the State Governments. Learned
senior counsel also referred to Article 48 and Article 51-A of thePage 27
27
Constitution of India and submitted that the State has a duty to
protect and improve environment and safeguard the forests and
wildlife in the country, a duty cast upon all the States in the Union
of India. Reference was also made to the conservatism in BioDiversity and the Eco-centric principle, which have been
universally accepted. Learned senior counsel also referred to the
National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2016, and submitted that
translocation of Asiatic lions has been treated as a priority project
after having found that an alternative home for Asiatic lion is vital
for its survival. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the
National Forest Policy and the Scheme of 2009 and NWAP (2002-
2016) and the plans have legislative force as decided in Lafarge
Umiam Mining Private Limited, T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others (2011) 7 SCC 338
case and can be enforced through Courts.
23. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State of Gujarat, refuted all those contentions and reiterated that
there is no necessity of finding out a second home for Asiatic
lions, since the population of Asiatic lion has been properlyPage 28
28
protected in Greater Gir forest and also in few other sanctuaries
near Gir Forest. Shri Divan submitted that the population of
Asiatic lion has gone up reasonably since broader conservation
methods have been adopted by the State of Gujarat and that at
present, there is no immediate threat to the Asiatic lions calling
for emergency measures, like translocation or reintroduction.
Learned senior counsel further pointed out that past experience
shows that such translocation of lions ended in failure and
possibility of such recurrence cannot be ruled out, since Kuno is
not well set to accept or preserve an endangered species like
Asiatic lion; which is a success story at Gir.
24. Shri Divan also submitted that, so far, no acceptable
translocation plan has been prepared or implemented for a
successful translocation of an endangered species like Asiatic lion
and the same has been taken note of and commented upon the
State Wildlife Board, Gujarat in its meeting held on 16.3.2012.
Shri Divan also submitted that the prey-base studies are totally
inadequate and not a single study has been conducted or report
placed before this Court to show that the benchmark of 480,000Page 29
29
kgs. of wild ungulates biomass has been attained at Kuno. Shri
Divan also referred to the note dated 8.7.2012 submitted by Dr.
Ravi Chellam and contended that no reliable information was
furnished to support the view regarding adequacy of prey base at
Kuno. Shri Divan also referred to Section 12 of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act and submitted that the translocation should be to
‘an alternative suitable habitat”. Kuno, according to the learned
senior counsel, is not a ‘suitable habitat’, not only due to
inadequacy of prey-base, but also due to factors like presence of
tigers, large scale poaching, unfavourable climate condition, lack
of expertise, human-animal conflict etc.
25. Learned senior counsel also referred to the issues raised by
the petitioner through this PIL and contended that it would not
stand the tests laid in Lafarge case (supra), especially when the
State Board of Wild Life has stated cogent reasons why
translocation of lions to Kuno, at present, is not advisable, which
is fully justified by the objections and independent scientific
material. Such decision, according to the learned senior counsel,
is not amenable to judicial review and, even otherwise, noPage 30
30
grounds are made out for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing
translocation of Asiatic lion from Gir to Kuno.
Legal Framework
26. We will first deal with the constitutional and the legal
framework on which we have to examine the various issues which
have come up for consideration in this case. The subject
“Protection of wild animals and birds” falls under List III, Entry
17B of Seventh Schedule. The Parliament passed The Wild Life
(Protection) Act 53 of 1972 to provide for the protection of wild
animals and birds with a view to ensuring the ecological and
environmental security of the country. The Parliament vide
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted Article 48A
w.e.f. 03.01.1977 in Part IV of the Constitution placing
responsibility on the State “to endeavour to protect and improve
the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country.” Article 51A was also introduced in Part IVA by the
above-mentioned amendment stating that “it shall be the duty of
every citizen of India to protect and improve the naturalPage 31
31
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to
have compassion for living creatures”.
27. By Act 23 of 1982, Section 12(bb) was inserted in the Wild
Life (Protection) Act w.e.f. 21.05.1982 which authorised the Chief
Wild Life Warden to grant a special permit for the purpose of
scientific management which would include translocation of any
wild animal to an alternative suitable habitat or population
management of wild life without killing or poisoning or destroying
any wild animals.
28. The Parliament later vide Act 16 of 2003 inserted Section 5A
w.e.f. 22.09.2003 authorizing the Central Government to
constitute the National Board for Wild Life (in short ‘NBWL’). By
the same Amendment Act, Section 5C was also introduced
eliciting functions of the National Board. Section 5B was also
introduced by the aforesaid amendment authorizing the National
Board to constitute a Standing Committee for the purpose of
exercising such powers and performing such duties as may be
delegated to the Committee by the National Board. NBWL is,Page 32
32
therefore, the top most scientific body established to frame
policies and advise the Central and State Governments on the
ways and means of promoting wild life conservation and to review
the progress in the field of wild life conservation in the country
and suggesting measures for improvement thereto. The Central
and the State Governments cannot brush aside its opinion without
any cogent or acceptable reasons. Legislation in its wisdom has
conferred a duty on NBWL to provide conservation and
development of wild life and forests.
29. This Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010)
10 SCC 604 held that all efforts must be made to implement the
spirit and provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; the
provisions of which are salutary and are necessary to be
implemented to maintain ecological chain and balance. The
Stockholm Declaration, the Declaration of United Nations,
Conventions on Human Environment signed in the year 1972, to
which India is the signatory, have laid down the foundation of
sustainable development and urged the nations to work together
for the protection of the environment. Conventions on BiologicalPage 33
33
Diversity, signed in the year 1962 at Rio Summit, recognized for
the first time in International Law that the conservation of
biological diversity is “a common concern of human kind” and is
an integral part of the development process.
30. The Parliament enacted the Biological Diversity Act in the
year 2002 followed by the National Biodiversity Rules in the year
2004. The main objective of the Act is the conservation of
biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization
of genetic resources. Bio-diversity and biological diversity
includes all the organisms found on our planet i.e. plants, animals
and micro-organisms, the genes they contain and the different
eco-systems of which they form a part. The rapid deterioration of
the ecology due to human interference is aiding the rapid
disappearance of several wild animal species. Poaching and the
wildlife trade, habitat loss, human-animal conflict, epidemic etc.
are also some of the reasons which threaten and endanger some
of the species.Page 34
34
31. India is known for its rich heritage of biological diversity and
has so far documented over 91,200 species of animals. In India’s
bio-graphic regions, 45,500 species of plants are documented as
per IUCN Red List 2008. India has many critically threatened
animal species. IUCN has noticed today the only living
representative of lions once found throughout much of south-west
Asia occurred in India’s Gir forest which has been noticed as a
critically endangered species in IUCN Red List. The IUCN adopted
a resolution of 1963 by which a multi-lateral treaty was drafted as
the Washington Convention also known as the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES), 1973. CITES entered into force on 1st July, 1975,
which aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild
animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the species
in the wild, and it accords varying degrees of protection to more
than 33,000 species of animals and plants. Appendix 1 of CITES
refers to 1200 species which are threatened with extinction.
Asiatic lion is listed in Appendix 1 recognizing that species is
threatened with extinction. Page 35
35
32. We notice for achieving the objectives of various
conventions including Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
and also for proper implementation of IUCN, CITES etc., and the
provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, Bio-diversity Act,
Forest Conservation Act etc. in the light of Articles 48A and
51A(g), the Government of India has laid down various policies
and action plans such as the National Forest Policy (NFP) 1988,
National Environment Policy (NEP) 2006, National Bio-diversity
Action Plan (NBAP) 2008, National Action Plan on Climate Change
(NAPCC) 2008 and the Integrated development of wild life
habitats and centrally sponsored scheme framed in the year 2009
and integrated development of National Wild-life Action Plan
(NWAP) 2002-2016. In Lafarge case (supra) this Court held that
National Forest Policy 1988 be read together with the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. In our view, the integrated
Development of Wile Life habitat under the Centrally Sponsored
Scheme of 2009 and the NWAP (2002-2016) have to be read
along with the provisions of the Wile Life (Conservation) Act.Page 36
36
33. The Prime Minister of India on 1.1.2002, in the XXI Meeting
of the Indian Board for Wildlife, released the ‘National Wildlife
Action Plan (2002-2016)’ (in short NWAP 2002-2016). NWAP has
highlighted that the wildlife encompasses all uncultivated flora
and undomesticated fauna and every species has the right to live
and every threatened species must be protected to prevent its
extinction. It was noticed with the mounting agricultural,
industrial and demographic pressures, wilderness areas, which
are the richest repositories of wildlife and biodiversity have either
shrunk or disappeared and their continued existence is crucial for
the long term survival of the biodiversity and the ecosystems
supporting them. NWAP, inter alia, highlighted the necessity to
protect the long term ecological security of India and to identify
and protect natural ecosystems from over-exploitation,
contamination and degradation. NWAP has also urged the
necessity to give primacy to in situ conservation which is a sheet
anchor of wildlife conservation. Ex situ measures in zoological
parks and gene banks may supplement this objective, without
depleting scarce wild resources. NWAP also highlighted thePage 37
37
ecological requirements for the survival of threatened, rare and
endangered species together with their community associations
of flora and fauna. It also highlighted the imperative necessity to
have alternative homes for highly endangered species like the
Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Asiatic Lion, Wild Buffalo,
Dugong, the Manipur Brow Antlered Deer and the like. It was also
noticed that where in situ conservation efforts are unlikely to
succeed, ex situ captive breeding and rehabilitation measures
may be necessary, in tandem with the preparation of their wild
habitats to receive back captive populations, especially in respect
of lesser-known species where status and distribution of wild
animals are not fully known. NWAP also highlighted the necessity
of taking the following actions:
1. To identify all endangered species of flora and fauna, study
their needs and survey their environs and habitats to
establish the current level of security and the nature of
threats. Conduct periodic reviews of flora and fauna species
status, and correlate the same with the IUCN Red Data List
every three years.Page 38
38
2. Invest special care and resources to protect habitats that
harbour highly endangered species especially those having
single population and a high degree of endemism.
3. Initiate action to prevent the “genetic swamping” of wild
species.
4. To undertake a programme of ex situ captive breeding and
rehabilitation in the wild for critically endangered species in
accordance with IUCN guidelines, after developing requisite
techniques and capabilities in this regard.
5. To publish flora and fauna species status papers periodically,
which should be translated into local languages.
6. To declare identified areas around Protected Areas and
corridors as ecologically fragile under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, wherever necessary.
NWAP also highlighted the priority projects and to initiate a timebound plan to identify and conduct status surveys of all
endangered species covering all groups of rare and threatened
species of flora and fauna and to provide protection to the
environs and habitats of all rare and threatened species of floraPage 39
39
and fauna under the priority projects. 2.2 of Para 3 of NWAP read
as follows:
“2.2 Identify suitable alternative homes for single
isolated populations of species such as Jerdon’s Courser,
Asiatic Lion, Manipur Deer, Wroughton’s Free Tailed Bat
and the like, and manage the same as Protected Areas
effectively.”
34. NWAP also states that the same is the responsibility of MoEF,
State Governments, Scientific Institutions and NGOs. The
necessity to take immediate steps for preventing the entry of
domestic and feral species that may lead to genetic swamping,
has also been highlighted. The importance to safeguard
genetically pure populations from future genetic contamination
and where genetic swamping has occurred, to phase out such
swamping, was also highlighted. NWAP, in chapter IV, has
highlighted the necessity to the restoration and management of
degraded habitats outside the protected areas.
35. MoEF noticed that the fragmented nature of wildlife rich
areas, increased human pressure, habitat degradation,Page 40
40
proliferation of invasive species, man-animal conflicts, poaching,
impacts of changing climate etc. are some of the challenges that
has to be addressed at a war footing. The necessity for ensuring
better protection of wildlife outside the protected areas and
initiating recovery programmes for saving critically endangered
species and habitats has also been high-lighted. Keeping that in
view, a comprehensive Centrally Sponsored Scheme titled
‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’ has been made
operational on 30.7.2009 which was in addition to the erstwhile
Centrally Sponsored Scheme – ‘Assistance for the Development of
National Parks and Sanctuaries’. The scheme incorporated
additional components and activities for implementing the
provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the National
Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016), recommendations of the Tiger
Task Force, 2005 and the National Forest Commission, 2006 and
the necessities felt from time to time for the conservation of
wildlife and biodiversity in the country. The scheme was
formulated during the 11th year plan. Page 41
41
36. India has a network of 99 national parks, 515 wildlife
sanctuaries, 43 conservation reserves and 4 community reserves
in different bio-geographic zones. Many important habitats, still
exists outside those areas, which requires special attention from
the point of view of conservation. The Centrally Sponsored
Scheme also specifically refers to the recovery programmes for
saving critically endangered species and habitats. Due to variety
of reasons, several species and their habitats have become
critically endangered. Snow leopard, Great Indian Bustard,
Kashmir Stag, Gangetic Dolphin, Nilgiri Tahr, Malabar Civet,
marine turtles, etc are few examples.
37. The scope of the Centrally Sponsored scheme was examined
in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and
others (2012) 3 SCC 277 (Wilde 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. NWAPPage 42
42
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 (supra) 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 eco-centric and not anthropocentric.
ANTHROPOCENTRIC VS. ECO-CENTRIC
38. We may point out that has been wide ranging discussions
and deliberations on the international platforms and conferences
for re-building of certain principles laid down in the earlier
conventions on the Principles of Sustainable Development. The
United Nations Commission on Environment and Development
defined the ‘sustainable development’ as follows:
“Sustainable development is the development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.” (World
Commission on Economic Development [WCED], 1987 :
43)Page 43
43
39. Sustainable development, it has been argued by various
eminent environmentalists, clearly postulates an anthropocentric
bias, least concerned with the rights of other species which live
on this earth. Anthropocentrism is always human interest
focussed thinking that non-human has only instrumental value to
humans, in other words, humans take precedence and human
responsibilities to non-human are 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.
40. We re-iterate that while examining the necessity of a second
home for the Asiatic lions, our approach should be eco-centric and
not anthropocentric and we must apply the “species best interest
standard”, that is the best interest of the Asiatic lions. We must
focus our attention to safeguard the interest of species, as
species has equal rights to exist on this earth. Asiatic Lion hasPage 44
44
become critically endangered because of human intervention.
The specie originally existed in North Africa and South-West Asia
formerly stretched across the coastal forests of northern Africa
and from northern Greece across south-west Asia to eastern India.
Today the only living representatives of the lions once found
throughout much of South-West Asia occur in India's Gir Forest.
Asiatic lion currently exists as a single sub-population and is thus
vulnerable to extinction from unpredictable events, such as an
epidemic or large forest fire etc. and we are committed to
safeguard this endangered species because this species has a
right to live on this earth, just like human beings.
41. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only the
human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to
protect and preserve a specie becoming extinct, conservation and
protection of environment is an inseparable part of right to life. In
M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC 388, this
Court enunciated the doctrine of “public trust”, the thrust of that
theory is that certain common properties such as rivers,
seashores, forests and the air are held by the Government inPage 45
45
trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public.
The resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a
great importance to the people as a whole, that it would be totally
unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The
State, as a custodian of the natural resources, has a duty to
maintain them not merely for the benefit of the public, but for the
best interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and so on. The doctrine
of ‘public trust’ has to be addressed in that perspective.
42. We, as human beings, have a duty to prevent the species
from going extinct and have to advocate for an effective species
protection regimes. NWAP 2002-2016 and the Centrally
Sponsored Scheme 2009 indicate that there are many animal
species which are close enough to extinction and some of the
other species have already disappeared from this earth. No
species can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely and that
the continued existence of any species depends upon various
factors like human-animal conflict, epidemics, forest fire and
other natural calamities etc. Page 46
46
43. The Wildlife Biologists of WII, after conducting a research on
Gir Forests, noticed the necessity for long term conservation of
Asiatic lion in Gir and also highlighted the necessity of a second
natural habitat for its long term conservation. Population and
Habitat Analysis Workshop held at Baroda in October, 1993 also
highlighted that fact. NBWL, as already indicted, has taken a
consistent view in all its meetings about the necessity of a second
habitat for Asiatic lion, an endangered species. Asiatic lion, it has
been noticed, has been restricted to only one single habitat, i.e.
the Gir National Forest and its surrounding areas and an outbreak
of possible epidemic or natural calamity might wipe off the entire
species. A smaller population with limited genetic strength are
more vulnerable to diseases and other catastrophes in
comparison to large and widespread population. Threat,
therefore, is real and has proved by the outbreak of canine
distemper in the lions of Serengeti NP, Tanzania in 1994. 85% of
the Serengeti lion population, it was noticed, had Canine
Distemper Virus antibodies and at least 30% of the Serengeti and
Mara lions died due to the infection. Compared with Gir, the lion
population in the 40,000 sq. km. Serengeti-Mara ecosystem isPage 47
47
large with about 2500 lions. It was felt that if an epidemic of this
scale were to affect the lions in Gir, it would be very difficult to
save them from extinction, given the much smaller area of the Gir
forests and the smaller lion population. The possibility of the
decease spreading to the pockets of habitat such as Girnar,
Mityala, Rajula, Kodinar and the surrounding areas, cannot be
ruled out.
44. We have already indicated that there is uniformity in the
views expressed by the Bio-Scientists of WII, NBWL, MoEF and
other experts that to have a second home for the endangered
species like Asiatic lion is of vital importance. A detailed study
has been conducted to find out the most suitable habitat for its
re-introduction and Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (for short ‘Kuno’) in
Madhya Pradaesh, as already indicted, has been found to be the
most ideal habitat.
Ownership and Possession of wild Animals
45. No state, organisation or person can claim ownership or
possession over wild animals in the forest. Wild Animal is definedPage 48
48
under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 under Section 2(36) to
mean any animal specified in schedules I to IV and found wild in
nature. ‘Wild Life’ has been defined under Section 2(37) to
include any animal, bees, butterflies, crustacean, fish and moths,
and or land vegetation which forms part of any habitat. Section 9
prohibits hunting of wild animals, specified in Schedule I, II, III and
IV except as provided under Section 11 and Section 12. Section
40 of the Act obliges a person to make a declaration and Section
41 enables the Chief Wild Life Warden to make an enquiry and
preparation of inventories and Section 42 deals with the issue of
certificates and confers, no ownership of the wild animals to a
particular state or others. Animals in the wild are properties of
the nation for which no state can claim ownership and the state’s
duty is to protect the wild life and conserve it, for ensuring the
ecological and environmental security of the country.
46. Several migratory birds, mammals, and animals in wild cross
national and international borders created by man and every
nation have a duty and obligation to ensure their protection. No
nation or organisation can claim ownership or possession overPage 49
49
them, the Convention on the conservation of migratory species of
wild animals held at Bonn, 1979, supports this principle and the
convention recognises that wild animals in their innumerable
forms are irreplaceable part of the earth; natural system and
must be conserved for the good of the mankind. It has
recognised that the states are and must be the protectors of the
migratory species of wild animals that live within or pass through
their national jurisdictional boundaries. Convention highlights
that conservation and effective management of migratory species
of wild animals require the concerted action of all states within
the national jurisdictional boundaries of which such species spend
any part of their life cycle. India is also a signatory to that
convention.
47. State of Gujarat has taken up the stand that it has got its
own conservation programme in respect of Asiatic lion. Due the
effective conservation programme carried out by the State of
Gujarat at Gir, it was pointed out, that the number of Asiatic lions
in the wildlife has increased, the range of these lions has
increased, the statutorily protected habitat has increased, so alsoPage 50
50
the area occupied by these lions has increased. The State has
maintained the stand that there is no present or immediate
danger to the Asiatic lions warranting any emergency measures.
48. State Board for Wildlife, Gujarat (SBWL, Gujarat), which has
been constituted by the State Government under Section 6 of the
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, convened a meeting on 16.3.2012
to discuss the issue relating to translocation of Asiatic lion from
Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh. SBWL, Gujarat and took the view
that that the issue of giving or not giving lions to Kuno is not an
issue of conflict between States, but it is a collective Indian
cultural approach in the interest of long term conservation of lions
as part of our family. SBWL further maintained the stand that
Asiatic Lion being a “family member” is beyond and higher than
the “scientific reasoning”. SBWL, therefore, did not agree with
the proposal for translocation of lion from Gujarat to Kuno, a
stand endorsed by the State of Gujarat.
49. Approach made by SWBL and the State of Gujarat is an
anthropocentric approach, not eco-centric though the State of
Gujarat can be justifiably proud of the fact that it has preservedPage 51
51
an endangered specie becoming extinct. We are, however,
concerned with a fundamental issue whether the Asiatic lions
should have a second home. The cardinal issue is not whether
the Asiatic lion is a “family member” or is part of the “Indian
culture and civilization”, or the pride of a State but the
preservation of an endangered species for which we have to apply
the “species best interest standard”. Our approach should not be
human-centric or family-centric but eco-centric. “Scientific
reasoning” for its re-location has to supersede the family bond or
pride of the people and we have to look at the species best
interest especially in a situation where the specie is found to be a
critically endangered one and the necessity of a second home has
been keenly felt. We, therefore, find it difficult to agree with the
reasoning of SBWL, Gujarat and the State of Gujarat that the
Asiatic lion is a family member and hence be not parted with.
50. The views of NBWL constituted by the Central Government in
exercise of its powers conferred under Section 5A of the Wildlife
Protection Act, have to prevail over the views expressed by SBWL.
The duties conferred on the National Board under Section 5C ofPage 52
52
the Act and on the State Board under Section 8 of the Act are
entirely different. NBWL has a duty to promote conservation and
development of wildlife and frame policies and advise the Central
Government and the State Governments on the ways and
importance of promoting wildlife conservation. It has to carry
out/make assessment of various projects and activities on wildlife
or its habitat. NBWL has also to review from time to time the
progress in the field of wildlife conservation in the country and
suggest measures for improving thereto. Those functions have
not been conferred on the State Board. The State Board has been
conferred with a duty to advise the State Government the
selection and management of areas to be declared as protected
areas and advise the State Government in formation of their
policies for protection and conservation of the wildlife and specify
plans etc. Statutorily, therefore, it is the duty of NBWL to
promote conservation and development of wildlife with a view to
ensuring ecological and environmental security in the country.
We are, therefore, of the view that the various decisions taken by
NBWL that Asiatic lion should have a second home to save it from
extinction, due to catastrophes like epidemic, large forest fire etc,Page 53
53
which could result in extinction, is justified. This Court, sitting in
the jurisdiction, is not justified in taking a contrary view from that
of NBWL.
HISTORICAL HABITAT – RE-INTRODUCTION
51. No specie can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely
and the probabilities associated with a critically endangered
specie make their extinction a matter of time. Convention biology
is the science that studies bio-diversity and the dynamics of
extinction. Eco-system approach to protecting endangered
species emphasises on recovery, and complement and support
eco-system based conservation approach. Reintroduction of an
animal or plant into the habitat from where it has become extinct
is also known as ex-situ conservation. India has successfully
achieved certain re-introduction programmes, for example, the
Rhino from Kaziranga, re-introduction of Gangetic gharial in the
rivers of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan etc. Re-introduction of an
organism is the intentional movement of an organism into a part
of its native range from which it has disappeared or becomePage 54
54
extirpated in historic times as a result of human activities or
natural catastrophe.
52. Kuno, as already stated, was proved to be a historical habitat
of Asiatic Lions. After survey of the potential status for reintroduction of Asiatic lion, a final report has been submitted by
WII, which was published on 31.1.1995 Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary
(Madhya Pradesh) emerged as the most suitable habitat for reintroduction of the Asiatic lion. The Council of Ministers approved
the project on 28.2.1996. Between 1996 and 2001, 24 villages
with about 1547 families had been translocated from the
sanctuary by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department.
Government of Madhya Pradesh had also demarcated 1280 sq.
kms. Kuno Wildlife Division, encompassing the Sironi, Agra and
Morawan forest ranges around the sanctuary. Government of
India vide its order dated 21.1.1997 ordered diversion of 3720.9
hectares of forest land, including 18 villages were protected
under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. A 20-years
Project envisaged by the Government of India was also approved
by NBWL in its meeting held on 10.3.2004. The Government ofPage 55
55
Madhya Pradesh took up a massive re-location of villages and
giving them alternative sites. A male over 18 years of age was
considered to be a family and each family was given 2 hectares of
cultivate land, in addition to 500 sq. mtrs. Land was also given for
house construction. Financial assistance to the tune of
Rs.1,00,000/- in the form of housing material was also given.
Government of India has spent a sum of Rs.15 crores for the said
purpose.
53. We also notice that all possible steps have been taken by the
State of Madhya Pradesh, MoEF and the Union of India making
Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary fit for re-introduction of Asiatic lion, with
the approval of NWLB.
PREY DENSITY:
54. WII was requested to assess the availability of prey density
in the year 2005. With the assistance of various staff, 17
transects totalling 461 km were surveyed over an area of 280 sq.
kms. The density of catchable wild prey (chital, sambar, nilgai,
wild pig) by lions was 13 animals/sq. km. There were about 2500
cattle, left behind by the translocated people which werePage 56
56
considered to be the buffer prey for lions to tide over the likely
problem of drought periodically killing wild ungulates. WII noticed
that with the implementation of the recommendations such as the
control of poaching, grassland management, building rubble wall
around the Division and water augmentation, a substantial rise
(ca. 20 animals/Sq. km) in the wild prey base for lions by the end
of 2007. A detailed report on the assessment of prey population
was submitted by WII in July 2006.
55. State of Gujarat had raised serious objection with regard to
prey density at Kuno. Various studies have been conducted with
regard to prey density. Reports and studies conducted by the
Government of Madhya Pradesh revealed that the prey density at
Kuno has far exceeded the estimated prey density as
recommended by Prof. Chellam in his 1993 report. The data
collected regarding prey density by Mr. Fiaz A. Khudsar and Mr.
Raman in the year 2008 shows the following picture:
Mr. F.A.
Khudsar
year 2004
Mr. F. A.
Khudsar
year 2006
Mr.
Raman,
WPO in
year 2008
WII in 2011
(Cheetah
task force
report
All prey
density
17.35 24.6 49.477
N.A.Page 57
57
excluding
feral cattle
All prey
density
including feral
cattle
- 63.97 67.406 85.91 ± 23
We notice that Mr. Khudsar collected his data regarding prey base
density April-May 2004 and May 2005, that report was published
in 2008. However, the census carried out by Mr. Rehman (WPO)
was in March 2008. Census was carried out as per All India Tiger
Census procedure. For the said purpose, the officials and staff of
Government of India was trained by the scientists of WII in 2008,
from 19-21 January. The Staff/officials of working plan was later
trained for one week from 18-23 February, 2008 in Game Guard
Training School, Bandhavgarh and then census was carried out
from 2.3.2008 to 8.3.2008 under the supervision and guidance of
Dr. Quarnar Qureshi, Scientist WII. We, therefore, find that the
census carried out by Shri Raman (WPO) is latest in point of time.
The actual comparative statement between density estimation of
Shri Raman WPO, 2008 and Shri F.A. Khudsar is as follows:
Species Density
Recorded
by Shri F.A.
Khudsar
year 2004
Density
recorded by
Shri F.A.
Khudsar
year 2006
Density
recorded by
Shri Raman
WPO in
Year 2008
Density
recorded by
WII in 2001
(Cheetah
task forcePage 58
58
report)
Chital 6.6 12.5 18.834 35.87
Sambar 0.3 0.78 1.634 N.A.
Nilgai 0.77 1.61 5.603 N.A.
Four horned
Antelope
0.02 0.0 0.0 N.A.
Chinkara 3.6 6.52 1.983 N.A.
Wild Pig 0.79 3.19 3.534 N.A.
Feral Cattle 0.0 39.37 17.929 N.A.
In order to get latest figure of prey base, an exercise of prey
base estimation was done in Kuno in the month of June 2012 by
the team of expert independent scientists and various officers of
M.P. In June 2012, WII was requested to conduct a survey to
assess the latest status of prey base in Kuno. An exercise was
carried out jointly by the independent members i.e.
scientists/experts from WII, WWF India and the personnel of Kuno
Wildlife Division to determine the accurate prey base. The
following was the methodology taken up by them.
“(ii) Prey base density estimation: The methodology of
exercise was – Distance sampling on systematic line transect
method as developed by Buckland et al., 2011. Fixed line
transects distributed across Kuno WLS, were sampled. All the
line transects were walked three times. All ungulates and
other prey species observed along with their group size were
recorded. The total sampling effort was 208.5 km and 144
man-days.Page 59
59
(iii) Analysis:- The density of prey species which include
Chital, Sambhar, Nilgai, Wildpig, Chinkara, Langur, Peafowl
and Feral Cattle was estimated using the software DISTANCE
6.0. The analysis of the collected data was done by Dr. Jhala
and researchers working under him.
(iv) Population Density:- As a result of exercise done for
estimation of prey-base, density estimates of Chital, Sambhar,
Nilgai, Wildpig, Chinkara, Lungur, Peafowl and Feral Cattle
were calculated. Population density of prey species in Kuno
WLS was found as follows:
Species Population
Density / Sq.
km. ± Standard
Error
Chital 51.59 ± 8.84
Sambhar 3.59 ± 1.01
Nilgai 2.32 ± 0.59
Wild Pig 4.68 ± 1.54
Chinkara 0.99 ± 0.35
Langur 17.2 ± 4.6
Peafowl 6.44 ± 2.34
Feral
Cattle
1.83 ± 0.77
State of Madhya Pradesh has also taken up the stand that the
prey base in Kuno is more than the existing prey base in Gir. A
chart comparing the same as also been produced before us,
which is as follows:Page 60
60
2012 Scenario:-
Species Av. Wt.
(kg)
Gir N.P. Kuno WLS
Density
per sq.
Km.
Biomas
s (kg)
Density
per sq.
Km.
Biomass
(kg)
Chital 47 50.8 2387.60 51.59 2424.7
Sambar 134 2.00 268.00 3.59 481.06
Nilgai 125 0.58 72.50 2.32 290
Four horned
antelope
21 0.42 8.82 - -
Chinkara 20 2.40 48.00 0.99 19.8
Wild Pig 32 0.00 0.00 4.68 149.76
Common
Langur
09 0.00 0.00 17.2 154.8
Total
including
Langur
56.2 2785 80.37 3520.12
Total
excluding
langur &
feral cattle
63.17 3365.32
State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, maintained the stand that, in
2012 scenario, the biomass per sq/km in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary
excluding feral cattle and langur (3365.32 kg per sq/km) is more
than the biomass in Gir PA (2785 kg per sq/km).
56. State of Gujarat filed an application on 2.7.2012 on the basis
of the above estimation of prey base and sought a direction to the
parties to take a fresh survey on prey base. Shri Ravi Chellam in
his written note on 8.7.2012 made some remarks on prey-basePage 61
61
stating that prey density estimation seems to be inadequate in
terms of design, data-collection, protocols, and analytical
methods, when compared with the internationally accepted
standards. Shri Chellam suggested that prey studies have to be
conducted at least twelve months covering all seasons and
habitat.
57. State of Gujarat has also raised various other objections
stating that the past track record would indicate that State of
Madhya Pradesh is not taking any effective steps to control
poaching which is also a threat if lions are translocated to Kuno.
To meet that contention, the State of Madhya Pradesh stated that
the Tiger Authority of India in its report – Tiger Meets, July 2011 –
has assessed the performance of the State of Madhya Pradesh as
outstanding, which would indicate that they had taken effective
steps against poaching of animals at Kuno. We notice that
poaching of wild animals is of great concern which calls for
attention by all State Governments, so as to protect the
endangered species from extinction.
It is a matter which has to
Page 62
62
be dealt with effectively and poaches, if caught, should be
brought to justice.
Cheetah to Kuno
58. We notice that while the matter was being heard, a decision
has been made by MoEF to import African Cheetahs from Namibia
to India and to introduce the same at Kuno. Amicus Curiae filed
I.A. No. 3452 of 2012. This Court granted a stay on 8.5.2012 of
the decision of MoEF to import the Cheetahs from Namibia to
India for introducing them to Kuno. Serious objections have been
raised by the Amicus Curiae Shri P.S. Narasimha against the
introduction of foreign species at Kuno. Learned Amicus Curiae
pointed out that the decision to introduce African Cheetahs into
the same proposed habitat chosen for re-introduction of Asiatic
lion has not been either placed before the Standing Committee of
NBWL, nor has there been a consistent decision. Learned Amicus
Curiae pointed out that IUCN Guidelines on translocation clearly
differentiated between introduction and re-introduction. The
guidelines critically warned against the introduction of African or
imported species which never existed in India. It is not a case ofPage 63
63
international movement of organism into a part of its native
range.
Learned Amicus Curiae pointed that NWAP 2002-2016,
which is a National Policy document, does not envisage reintroduction of a foreign species to India. The Police only
mentioned re-introduction or finding an alternative home for
species like Asiatic lion.
59. MoEF, in our view, has not conducted any detailed study
before passing the order of introducing foreign cheetah to Kuno.
Kuno is not a historical habitat for African cheetahs, no materials
have been placed before us to establish that fact. A detailed
scientific study has to be done before introducing a foreign
species to India, which has not been done in the instant case.
NBWL, which is Statutory Board established for the purpose under
the Wildlife Protection Act was also not consulted.
60. We may indicate that our top priority is to protect Asiatic
lions, an endangered species and to provide a second home.
Various steps have been taken for the last few decades, but
nothing transpired so far. Crores of rupees have been spent by
the Government of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh for re-
Page 64
64
introduction of Asiatic lion to Kuno.
At this stage, in our view, the
decision taken by MoEF for introduction of African cheetahs first to Kuno and then Asiatic lion, is arbitrary an illegal and clear violation of the statutory requirements provided under the Wildlife Protection Act. The order of MoEF to introduce African Cheetahs into Kuno cannot stand in the eye of Law and the same is quashed.
61. MoEF’s decision for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir to
Kuno is that of utmost importance so as to preserve the Asiatic
lion, an endangered species which cannot be delayed.
Reintroduction of Asiatic lion, needless to say, should be in
accordance with the guidelines issued by IUCN and with the
active participation of experts in the field of re-introduction of
endangered species. MoEF is therefore directed to take urgent
steps for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir forests to Kuno.
MoEF has to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of senior
officials of MoEF, Chief Wildlife Wardens of the States of Madhya
Pradesh and Gujarat. Technical experts should also be the
members of the Committee, which will include the Secretary
Page 65
65
General and Chief Executive Officer of WWF. Dr. Y.S. Jhala, senior
scientist with Wildlife Institute of India, Dr. Ravi Chellam, senior
scientist, Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh, since all of them had done lot of
research in that area and have national and international
exposure. Any other expert can also be co-opted as the
members of the Committee. Needless to say, the number of
lions to be re-introduced would depend upon the density of prey
base and other related factors, which the Committee will assess.
62. I.A. is allowed as mentioned above. The order be carried out
in its letter and spirit and within a period of 6 months from today.
We record our deep appreciation for the assistance rendered by
all the senior counsel and learned amicus curiae Shri P.S.
Narasimha and also Dr. Ravi Chellam who was present in the
Court throughout and made valuable suggestions with regard to
the various environmental and scientific issues.
63. We are also inclined to highlight the necessity of an
exclusive parliamentary legislation for the preservation and
protection of endangered species so as to carry out the recovery
Page 66
66
programmes before many of the species become extinct and to
give the following directions:
(a) NWAP (2002-2016) has already identified species like the
Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Dugong, the Manipur Brow
Antlered Deer, over and above Asiatic Lion and Wild Buffalo as
endangered species and hence we are, therefore, inclined to give
a direction to the Government of India and the MoEF to take
urgent steps for the preservation of those endangered species as
well as to initiate recovery programmes.
(b) The Government of India and the MoEF are directed to
identify, as already highlighted by NWAP, all endangered species
of flora and fauna, study their needs and survey their environs
and habitats to establish the current level of security and the
nature of threats. They should also conduct periodic reviews of
flora and fauna species status, and correlate the same with the
IUCN Red Data List every three years.
(c) Courts and environmentalists should pay more attention for
implementing the recovery programmes and the same be carried
out with imagination and commitment. Page 67
67
………………………………………..J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………………………..J.
(Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)
New Delhi,
April 15, 2013

LAW FOR ALL

LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

Tuesday, April 16, 2013