Supreme Court Directs Restoration of Corbett Tiger Reserve, Quashes 2019 Tiger Safari Guidelines: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 6, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 178
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can the pursuit of tourism overshadow the critical need for wildlife conservation? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question in a significant judgment concerning the Jim Corbett National Park. The court addressed the legality of establishing tiger safaris within tiger reserves, the extent of permissible construction and tree felling, and the urgent need for ecological restoration. The bench was composed of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Sandeep Mehta, with the judgment authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The case originated from concerns raised about illegal construction and tree felling within the Corbett Tiger Reserve. Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal initially approached the Delhi High Court in 2021, alleging unauthorized construction within the tiger breeding habitat. The Delhi High Court directed the authorities to treat the petition as a representation. Subsequently, the High Court of Uttarakhand took suo motu cognizance of the issue based on a news report about illegal construction activities in the Corbett Tiger Reserve. Mr. Bansal also filed an application before the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) highlighting illegal activities, including the establishment of a Tiger Safari in Gujjar Sot, Pakhrau Block. The CEC’s report led to further legal proceedings, including a contempt petition alleging violation of previous court orders. The Supreme Court intervened, leading to a detailed examination of the issues.

Timeline

Arguments

Submissions by Mr. K. Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae):

• The construction of a ‘Tiger Safari’ would lead to habitat fragmentation.
• The State Government is required to notify an area as a tiger reserve based on recommendations of the Tiger Conservation Authority and prepare a Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP).
• The concept of integrity of Tiger Reserve requires protection of buffer area and adequate dispersal for the species.
• The Central Zoo Authority (CZA) unilaterally changed the proposed site for the Safari.
• The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act) emphasizes on conservation of wildlife and not tourism.
• Conservation of wildlife should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric.
• The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) is the expert body for in situ conservation of wildlife.
• The 2019 Guidelines, which restore the primacy to the CZA, are against the principle of conservation.
• The ‘Tiger Safari’ is not defined under the WLP Act.
• The ‘Tiger Safari’ is not a measure of conservation but a means for tourism.
• The 2019 Guidelines permit animals from zoos to be relocated in the ‘Tiger Safaris’, leading to the risk of zoonotic disease transmission.
• The delegation of power by the NTCA to the CZA violates the scheme of the WLP Act.
• The Court must employ the restorative principle to restore the damages caused to the environment.

Submissions by Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni (State of Uttarakhand):

• All illegal constructions have been demolished and debris has been removed.
• Illegal construction works were carried out by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Kalagarh, without the requisite approvals.
• Proceedings have been initiated against the erring officials.
• The buffer areas are peripheral to core areas with a lesser degree of habitat protection.
• The project for establishing ‘Tiger Safari’ was initiated by NTCA, not the State of Uttarakhand.
• The CZA is the statutory authority for grant of approval for the establishment of ‘Tiger Safaris’.
• The TCP for the Corbett Tiger Reserve had a plan for setting up a rescue centre-cum-tiger safari.
• The site at Pakhrau was found to be more suitable since it was at the edge of the buffer zone.
• The ‘Tiger Safari’ project has been completed to the extent of 80%.
• The allegations about the violation of statutory provisions for the establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ are without substance.
• The FSI report does not depict the correct picture of tree felling.
• The works carried out after obtaining the permission of the Court are routine management activities.
• The area of Pakhrau Tiger Safari is a small percentage of the total area of the Corbett Tiger Reserve.

Submissions by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati (Additional Solicitor General):

• The 2016 Guidelines considered injured, conflict, or orphaned tigers.
• The 2019 Guidelines were issued to bring it in tune with Section 38I of the WLP Act.
• There are about 20 Safaris situated in the National Parks, some operating since the 1970s.

Submissions by Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal (Applicant-in-person):

• Various illegal constructions were made in the Corbett National Park in violation of statutory provisions.
• Illegal felling of trees was done to facilitate the illegal construction.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. 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.
2. Whether the establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau is legal or not.
3. The legality of the construction carried out in the Corbett Tiger Reserve and the illegal felling of trees for the said purpose.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to emphasize the shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric principles in environmental law.
• Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund -India v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to highlight the importance of implementing the National Wildlife Action Plan with an ecocentric approach.
• Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to define and emphasize the concept of sustainable development.
• Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. [CITATION]: Used to emphasize the fundamental right to a healthy environment.
• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to emphasize the role of courts in protecting environmental rights and the need for enforcement.
• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [CITATION]: Used to elaborate on the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine and its application to natural resources.
• Association for Environment Protection v. State of Kerala [CITATION]: Used to further emphasize the public trust doctrine.
• Tata Housing Development Company Limited v. Aalok Jagga [CITATION]: Used to further emphasize the importance of the ‘public trust’ doctrine in ecological matters.
• S. Jagannath v. Union of India [CITATION]: Used to define the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ and its application to environmental damage.
• Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992: Used to emphasize the need for rehabilitation and restoration of degraded ecosystems.
• Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Various sections were used to define key terms and outline the legal framework for wildlife protection, tiger conservation, and the roles of various authorities.
• Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution: Used to emphasize the duty of the State and citizens to protect the environment and wildlife.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to protect the environment and wildlife, particularly tigers, while ensuring sustainable development. The Court emphasized an ecocentric approach, prioritizing the intrinsic value of nature over human interests. The need to prevent further environmental degradation and restore the damaged ecosystem was a significant factor. The Court also considered the blatant disregard for statutory provisions and the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine by the concerned authorities. The Court also took into consideration the need to balance conservation and livelihood concerns of local people.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Are Tiger Safaris and Zoos on the same footing?

Issue 2: Is the Tiger Safari at Pakhrau legal?

Issue 3: Illegal construction and tree felling?

Key Takeaways

• Tiger Safaris must prioritize wildlife conservation and rehabilitation, not tourism.
• The 2016 Guidelines for Tiger Safaris, emphasizing the rehabilitation of injured, conflicted, or orphaned tigers, are upheld. The 2019 guidelines which allowed for sourcing of animals from zoos were quashed.
• The NTCA has the final authority in the establishment and management of Tiger Safaris.
• The ‘Public Trust’ doctrine is paramount in managing natural resources, and any deviation must be in good faith and for public interest.
• Ecological restoration is crucial, and the State must take active measures to restore damaged ecosystems.
• Illegal construction and tree felling in protected areas will be dealt with strictly.
• The precautionary principle must be applied to prevent environmental damage.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The existing safaris, including the one at Pakhrau, are not to be disturbed. The State of Uttarakhand is directed to relocate or establish a rescue center in the vicinity of the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau.
2. The MoEF&CC shall appoint a Committee to recommend measures for restoration, assess environmental damage, and identify responsible parties.
3. The Committee will also recommend guidelines for establishing Tiger Safaris, activities permitted in buffer zones, and restrictions on resorts.
4. The CBI is directed to investigate the matter as directed by the High Court of Uttarakhand.
5. The State of Uttarakhand is directed to complete disciplinary proceedings against delinquent officers within six months.
6. The matter is kept pending for monitoring purposes.
7. The Committee is requested to give its preliminary report within three months.
8. The CBI shall submit a report within three months.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment specifically quashed the 2019 guidelines which allowed for sourcing of animals fromzoos for Tiger Safaris, emphasizing that such safaris should be for the rehabilitation of injured, conflicted, or orphaned tigers, as outlined in the 2016 guidelines. This amendment underscores the Court’s commitment to in-situ conservation and the prevention of zoonotic disease transmission. The Court’s insistence on the primacy of the NTCA in the management of tiger reserves and safaris is another crucial amendment, ensuring that conservation efforts are guided by expert bodies rather than being driven by tourism interests. The direction to establish a committee to recommend measures for restoration and to assess environmental damage, and to fix responsibility on erring officers, reflects the Court’s resolve to enforce accountability and restore the damaged environment. The direction to CBI to investigate the matter is a strong measure to tackle corruption and misuse of authority in conservation efforts.

Implications

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Corbett Tiger Reserve case has far-reaching implications for environmental law and wildlife conservation in India. The emphasis on an ecocentric approach and the primacy of the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine will likely influence future cases involving natural resources. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and guidelines, and the need for accountability in conservation efforts. The ruling also sets a precedent for the establishment and management of Tiger Safaris, ensuring that they serve the purpose of in-situ conservation rather than becoming mere tourist attractions. The direction to restore the damaged ecosystem and to investigate illegal activities sends a strong message against environmental degradation and corruption. This judgment also highlights the need for a balance between conservation and livelihood concerns of local people, ensuring that conservation efforts do not adversely affect local communities. The judgment also emphasizes the role of the courts in protecting the environment and wildlife and also in ensuring that the enforcement agencies implement the laws effectively.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India case is a landmark decision that underscores the importance of ecological conservation and the need for a shift towards an ecocentric approach in environmental law. By quashing the 2019 guidelines and upholding the 2016 guidelines, the Court has reaffirmed the primacy of in-situ conservation and the role of the NTCA in managing tiger reserves. The judgment also highlights the need for accountability and transparency in conservation efforts, and the importance of restoring damaged ecosystems. The Court’s directions for the CBI investigation and the establishment of a committee for restoration measures indicate a strong commitment to addressing environmental violations and ensuring the long-term protection of India’s wildlife and natural resources. This judgment will serve as a guiding light for future conservation efforts and will help in balancing the need for development with the need to protect the environment.