Holding

Tiger safaris are distinct from zoos, may be established in buffer/fringe areas only under the 2016 NTCA guidelines, and the Pakhrau tiger safari is permitted subject to compliance with those guidelines.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether tiger safaris can be treated like zoos under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and whether the proposed tiger safari at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger Reserve was lawful. It held that a zoo, as defined in s.2(39), is an ex‑situ conservation establishment and tiger safaris, as envisioned by the NTCA, are not zoos; they may be permitted in buffer or fringe areas only if they follow the 2016 NTCA guidelines, not the 2019 guidelines that allow sourcing animals from zoos. The Court found the approvals for the Pakhrau safari technically valid, despite procedural lapses, and therefore approved its continuation, directing relocation of a rescue centre nearby. It also addressed extensive illegal construction and tree felling in the reserve, invoking the public‑trust doctrine and the principle of ecological restitution, and ordered a committee to recommend restoration measures, cost recovery, and future guidelines, while directing CBI investigation and disciplinary action against errant officials.

Issues considered

Whether tiger safaris are on the same footing as zoos under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Whether the establishment of a tiger safari at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger Reserve is legal
Whether illegal construction and tree felling occurred in Corbett Tiger Reserve
Application of the public‑trust doctrine to the forest and wildlife resources
Application of the principle of ecological restitution and restoration

Legislation cited

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
National Forest Policy, 1988
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972s. 2(39), s. 33(a), s. 38I, s. 38O, s. 38V, s. 38W, s. 38XA

Subjects

TigerSafariZooReserveIllegalConstructionTreesRestitutionWildlifeConservationAuthorityBufferFringeGuidelineex‑situRescueBoardForestEcosystemCorbettNationalParkPakhrauCommitteeMinistryInstituteDamageEnvironmentEcocentrismAnthropocentrismPrecautionaryRecommendationDisciplinaryDelinquentJusticeProtectionSustainableDevelopmentPublic TrustDoctrineStatePrincipleBiologicalDiversity

Judgment

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 187 : 2024 INSC 178

In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v.
Union of India & Ors.
In Re : Gaurav Kumar Bansal
I.A. No.20650 of 2023
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 Of 1995
06 March 2024
[B.R. Gavai,* Prashant Kumar Mishra and
Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same
footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in
Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; (iii) Illegal construction in Corbett
Tiger reserve and illegal felling of trees for the said purpose; (iv)
‘Public Trust’ Doctrine and (v) Principle of Ecological Restitution.

Headnotes
Wildlife Protection – ‘Tiger Reserve’ – Management and
protection of – Whether ‘zoo’ as defined u/s.2(39) and dealt
with under Chapter IVA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
and ‘Tiger Safaris’ as conceptualized by the National Tiger
Conservation Authority (NTCA) would stand on a same footing
– ‘Tiger Safari’, if permissible in buffer / fringe areas of Tiger
reserve – Establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett
Tiger Reserve – Legality of – NTCA guidelines for Normative
Standards for Tourism Activities and for Project Tiger for
tiger conservation in the buffer and core areas of the tiger
reserves, 2012 – NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in
Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2016 – NTCA
Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in Buffer and Fringe Areas
of the Tiger Reserves, 2019 – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
– National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines for
preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP), 2007 – National
Wildlife Action Plan, 2017-2031 – National Forest Policy, 1988.
Held: 1.1. The definition of ‘zoo’ as defined under s.2(39) of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act) itself would show that

* Author
188 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

it is meant to be an establishment, whether stationary or mobile,
where captive animals are kept for exhibiting to the public or ex-situ
conservation and include a circus and off-exhibit facilities such as
rescue centres and conservation breeding centres – However, it
does not include the establishment of a licensed dealer in captive
animals – Though a ‘zoo’ as contemplated under Chapter IVA of
the WLP Act also deals with conservation, it emphasizes on ex-
situ conservation – Insofar as area covered under a sanctuary is
concerned, a safari cannot be constructed within the said area
unless there is a prior approval of the National Board of Wildlife
– ‘Tiger Safaris’ conceptualized by the NTCA are not for the parks
which are working either as zoos or as an extension to zoos.
[Paras 79, 80, 83]
1.2. Prima facie, there is no infirmity in the guidelines issued by
the NTCA, i.e., the 2012 Guidelines and the 2016 Guidelines
for establishing the ‘Tiger Safaris’ in the buffer and fringe areas
of the ‘Tiger Reserve’ – The said Guidelines emphasizes on the
rehabilitation of injured tigers (after suitable treatment), conflict
tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for rewilding and
release into the wild – However, the 2019 Guidelines, departing from
the aforesaid purpose, provide for sourcing of animals from zoos
in the Tiger Safaris – This would be totally contrary to the purpose
of the Tiger Conservation – Although it will not be permissible
to establish a ‘Tiger Safari’ in a core or critical tiger habitat area
without obtaining the prior approval of the National Board, such
an activity would be permissible in the buffer or peripheral area –
However, such a ‘safari’ can be established only for the purposes
specified in clause 9 of the 2016 Guidelines and not as per the
2019 Guidelines. [Paras 100, 101, 103]
1.3 On facts, the concerned authorities, who have expertise in the
matter, have approved the said site at Pakhrau – In the peculiar
facts, this Court is inclined to approve the establishment of the
‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau. [Paras 113 and 114]
1.4. Presence of a Tiger in the forest is an indicator of the well-
being of the ecosystem – Unless steps are taken for the protection
of the Tigers, the ecosystem revolving around Tigers cannot be
protected – The events like illegal constructions and illicit felling of
trees on a rampant scale like the one that happened in the Corbett
National Park cannot be ignored – Steps are required to prevent
this – Courts are not experts in the field – It will be appropriate that
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 189

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

experts in the field come together and come out with a solution that
would go a long way in the effective management and protection
of the Tiger Reserves. [Para 160]
1.5. The following directions need to be issued in the interests
of justice :
A. The Safaris which are already existing and the one under
construction at Pakhrau will not be disturbed. However,
insofar as the Safari at ‘Pakhrau’ is concerned, the State
of Uttarakhand is directed to relocate or establish a rescue
centre in the vicinity of the ‘Tiger Safari’. The directions which
would be issued by this Court with regard to establishment
and maintenance of the ‘Tiger Safaris’ upon receipt of the
recommendations of the Committee which is being directed to
be appointed would also be applicable to the existing Safaris
including the Safari to be established at Pakhrau.
B. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
(MoEF&CC) shall appoint a Committee consisting of the
following : (i) a representative of the NTCA; (ii) a representative
of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII); (iii) a representative of
the Central Empowered Committee (CEC); and (iv) an officer
of the MoEF&CC not below the rank of Joint Secretary as its
Member Secretary. The Committee would be entitled to co-opt
any other authority including a representative of Central Zoo
Authority (CZA) and also take the services of the experts in
the field, if found necessary.
C. The said Committee will : (i) recommend the measures for
restoration of the damages, in the local in situ environment to
its original state before the damage was caused; (ii) assess the
environmental damage caused in the Corbett Tiger Reserve
(CTR) and quantify the costs for restoration; (iii) identify
the persons/officials responsible for such a damage. The
State shall recover the cost so quantified from the persons/
delinquent officers found responsible for the same. The cost
so recovered shall be exclusively used for the purpose of
restoration of the damage caused to the environment; and
(iv) specify how the funds so collected be utilized for active
restoration of ecological damage.
D. The aforesaid Committee, inter alia, shall consider and
recommend :
190 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(i) The question as to whether Tiger Safaris shall be permitted
in the buffer area or fringe area;
(ii) If such Safaris can be permitted, then what should be the
guidelines for establishing such Safaris?
(iii) While considering the aforesaid aspect, the Committee shall
take into consideration the following factors :
a) the approach must be of ecocentrism and not of anthro-
pocentrism;
b) the precautionary principle must be applied to ensure
that the least amount of environmental damage is
caused;
c) the animals sourced shall not be from outside the Tiger
Reserve. Only injured, conflicted, or orphaned tigers
may be exhibited as per the 2016 Guidelines. To that
extent the contrary provisions in the 2019 Guidelines
stand quashed;
d) That such Safaris should be proximate to the Rescue
Centres. The aforesaid factors are only some of the
factors to be taken into consideration and the Commit-
tee would always be at liberty to take such other factors
into consideration as it deems fit.
(iv) The type of activities that should be permitted and prohib-
ited in the buffer zone and fringe areas of the Tiger Reserve.
While doing so, if tourism is to be promoted, it has to be eco-
tourism. The type of construction that should be permissible
in such resorts would be in tune with the natural environment.
(v) The number and type of resorts that should be permitted
within the close proximity of the protected areas. What re-
striction to be imposed on such resorts so that they are man-
aged in tune with the object of protecting and maintaining
the ecosystem rather than causing obstruction in the same.
(vi) As to within how much areas from the boundary of the pro-
tected forest there should be restriction on noise level and
what should be those permissible noise levels.
(vii) The measures that are required to be taken for effective
management and protection of Tiger Reserves which shall
be applicable on a Pan India basis.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 191

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

(viii) The steps to be taken for scrupulously implementing such
recommendations.

E. The CBI is directed to effectively investigate the matter as
directed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in its
judgment and order dated 6th September 2023, passed in
Writ Petition No.178 of 2021.
F. The present proceedings shall be kept pending so that this
Court can monitor the steps taken by the Authorities as well
as the investigation conducted by the CBI.
G. This Court will consider issuing appropriate directions after
the recommendations are received by this Court from the
aforesaid Committee. The Committee is requested to give its
preliminary report within a period of three months from today.
H. The CBI shall submit a report to this Court within a period
of three months from today.
I. The State of Uttarakhand is directed to complete the
disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officers as
expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of
six months from today. The status report in this regard shall
be submitted to this Court within a period of three months
from today. [Para 161]
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Enactment of – Purpose.
Held: The enactment of the WLP Act was necessitated since it was
noticed that there was rapid decline of India’s wild animals and birds,
which was one of the richest and most varied in the world – The
Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 had become completely
outmoded – The existing State laws were not only outdated but
provided punishments that were not commensurate with the offence
and the financial benefits which accrue from poaching and trade
in wildlife produce – However, since the subject matters were
relatable to Entry 20 of the State list in the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India, the Parliament had no power to make a law
unless the Legislatures of two or more States passed a resolution
in pursuance of Article 252 of the Constitution – Accordingly, 11
States had passed resolutions to that effect – In this background,
the WLP Act came to be enacted – The entire emphasis of the
WLP Act is on the conservation, protection, and management of
wildlife. [Paras 9, 10, 46]
192 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Environment – Environmental justice – Need to drift away
from anthropocentrism principle to ecocentrism principle.
Held: The approach has to be ecocentric and not anthropocentric
– The approach has to be nature-centred where humans are a part
of nature and non-humans have intrinsic value – National Wildlife
Action Plan 2002-2012 and the Centrally Sponsored Integrated
Development of Wildlife Habitats Scheme, 2009 are centred on
the principle of ecocentrism. [Para 69, 91]
Environment – Environmental and ecological protection –
Principle of sustainable development – Discussed. [Para 77]
Environment – ‘Public Trust’ doctrine – Importance of, in
environmental and ecological matters – Discussed. [Para
134, 135, 136, 138]
Environment – Forest – Restoration of the damaged
ecological system – Role of the State – Principle of Ecological
Restitution – Discussed – Convention on Biological Diversity,
1992.
Held : Worldwide as well as in our jurisprudence, the law has
developed and evolved emphasizing on the restoration of the
damaged ecological system – A reversal of environmental damage
in conformity with the principle under Article 8(f) of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, 1992 (CBD) is what is required – The focus
has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar
as possible to the specific one that was damaged – Bringing the
culprits to face the proceedings is a different matter and restoration
of the damage already done is a different matter – The State
cannot run away from its responsibilities to restore the damage
done to the forest – The State, apart from preventing such acts
in the future, should take immediate steps for restoration of the
damage already done; undertake an exercise for determining the
valuation of the damage done and recover it from the persons
found responsible for causing such a damage. [Paras 156, 157
and 158]

Case Law Cited
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and
others [2012] 3 SCR 460 : (2012) 3 SCC 277 : 2012
INSC 87; Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide
Fund-India v. Union of India and others [2013] 6 SCR
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 193

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

757 : (2013) 8 SCC 234 : 2013 INSC 254; Vellore
Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others
[1996] Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647 : 1996
INSC 952; Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of
A.P. and others [2006] 2 SCR 419 : (2006) 3 SCC
549 : 2006 INSC 101; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India and others [1996] Supp.
1 SCR 507 : (1996) 5 SCC 281 : 1996 INSC 543;
Resident’s Welfare Association and another v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh and others [2023] 1 SCR 601 :
(2023) 8 SCC 643 : 2023 INSC 22; State of Himachal
Pradesh and others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta
and another [2024] 1 SCR 973 : 2024 INSC 30; State
of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Uday Education and
Welfare Trust and others [2022] 19 SCR 781 : 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1469 : 2022 INSC 465; M.C. Mehta
v. Kamal Nath and others [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 12 :
(1997) 1 SCC 388 : 1996 INSC 1482; Association for
Environment Protection v. State of Kerala and others
[2013] 7 SCR 352 : (2013) 7 SCC 226 : 2013 INSC
413; Tata Housing Development Company Limited v.
Aalok Jagga and others [2019] 13 SCR 577 : (2020)
15 SCC 784 : 2019 INSC 1203; Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action and others v. Union of India and
others [1996] 2 SCR 503 : (1996) 3 SCC 212 : 1996
INSC 237; S. Jagannath v. Union of India and others
[1996] Supp. 9 SCR 848 : (1997) 2 SCC 87 : 1996
INSC 1466 – relied on.
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua [Certain Activities Carried
Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, Compensation
Judgment] (2018) I.C.J. Reports 15; The Factory at
Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), 13 September 1928,
PCIJ, Merits, p. 47 – referred to.

List of Acts
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980; National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines
for preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP), 2007; NTCA
guidelines for Normative Standards for Tourism Activities and for
Project Tiger for tiger conservation in the buffer and core areas
of the tiger reserves, 2012; NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger
194 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Safaris in Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2016;
NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in Buffer and Fringe
Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2019; National Wildlife Action Plan;
National Forest Policy, 1988; Wild Birds and Animals Protection
Act, 1912; Constitution of India; Centrally Sponsored Integrated
Development of Wildlife Habitats Scheme, 2009; Convention on
Biological Diversity, 1992.

List of Keywords
Tiger; Safari; Zoo; Reserve; Illegal; Construction; Trees; Restitution;
Wildlife; Conservation; Authority; Buffer; Fringe; Guideline; ex-
situ; Rescue; Board; Forest; Ecosystem; Corbett; National; Park;
Pakhrau; Committee; Ministry; Institute; Committee; Damage;
Environment; Ecocentrism; Anthropocentrism; Precautionary;
Recommendation; Disciplinary; Delinquent; Justice; Protection;
Sustainable; Development; Public Trust; Doctrine; State; Principle;
Biological; Diversity

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No.20650 Of 2023
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances for Parties
A.D.N. Rao, Harish N. Salve, Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Advs. [A.Cs.],
Siddhartha Chowdhury, K. Parameshwar, [A.Cs.], M.V. Mukunda, Ms.
Kanti, Ms. Aarti Gupta, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Advs.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Archana Pathak
Dave, A.N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Advs., Ms. Shagun Thakur, Ms. Manisha
Chava, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Suhashini Sen, S. S. Rebello,
Shyam Gopal, Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanyam, Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Atul Sharma, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Ms. Deepti Arya, Ms.
Arzu Paul, Siddhant Gupta, Ms. Manisha Gupta, Rishikesh Haridas,
Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Dr.
Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Ramesh Allanki, Syed Ahmad
Naqvi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Petitioner/Applicant-in-person.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 195

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

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Index*

I. BACKGROUD Paras 1 to 3
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES Paras 4 to 7
III. STATUTORY PROVISIONS Paras 8 to 46
IV. GUIDELINES ISSUED BY VARIOUS Paras 47 to 67
AUTHORITIES
V. CONSIDERATION Paras 68 to 158
(a) Consideration as to whether Tiger Paras 78 to 103
Safaris and Zoos are on the same
footing or not.
(b) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Paras 104 to 114
Safari’ at Pakhrau is legal or not.
(c) Illegal construction and felling of Paras 115 to 132
trees
(d) ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine Paras 133 to 138
(e) Concern of the CEC Paras 139 to 149
(f) Principle of Ecological Restitution Paras 150 to 158
VI. CONCLUSIONS Paras 159 to 163

ABBREVIATIONS

CBD : Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992
CBI : Central Bureau of Investigation
CEC : Central Empowered Committee
CZA : Central Zoo Authority
DFO : Divisional Forest Officer
ERC : Elephant Rehabilitation/Rescue Centres
ESZ : Eco Sensitive Zone
FAC : Forest Advisory Committee
FC : Forest Clearance
FC Act : Forest (Conservation) Act,1980
FSI : Forest Survey of India

* Ed Note : Pagination as per original judgment.
196 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

HoFF : Head of Forest Forces
IFS : Indian Forest Service
IFSR : India State of Forest Report
MDF : Moderate Dense Forest
MoEF&CC : Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
Change
NPV : Net Present Value
NTCA : National Tiger Conservation Authority
OF : Open Forest
PCCF : Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
SC, NBWL : Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life
SOP : Standard Operating Procedure
sq.km. : square kilometer
TCP : Tiger Conservation Plan (“TCP
VDF : Very Dense Forest
WII : Wildlife Institute of India
WLP Act : Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.
“The tiger perishes without the forest and the forest perishes
without its tigers. Therefore, the tiger should stand guard over
the forest and the forest should protect all its tigers.”
This is how the importance of the tigers in the ecosystem has
been succinctly described in ‘Mahabharta’. The existence of the
forest is necessary for the protection of tigers. In turn, if the tiger
is protected, the ecosystem which revolves around him is also
protected. The tiger represents the apex of the animal pyramid
and the protection of their habitat must be a priority. “A healthy
tiger population is an indicator of sustainable development in the
13 tiger range countries”1.

1 Midori Paxton
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 197

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

In spite of such an importance given to the tiger and many statutory
provisions enacted for the conservation and protection of the tiger,
the present case depicts a sorry state of affairs as to how human
greed has led to devastating one of the most celebrated abodes of
tigers i.e. the Corbett Tiger Reserve.
When we consider this issue, it will also be apposite to refer to the
restoration experiment at the Yellowstone National Park of the United
States of America.
The impact of the absence of carnivores in a forest and the
regenerative effect on their re-introduction was witnessed in the
recent past in the famous Yellowstone National Park.
Wolves were hunted down by the mankind and the last recorded
wolf in the park was shot down by a park ranger in the year 1926.
Resultantly, owing to lack of apex predators in the park, the population
of deer and other herbivores rose significantly. Efforts made by
humans to control the herbivore population proved unsuccessful
and resultantly these animals grazed away the vegetation which
had the cascading effect of soil erosion and depletion of forest. As
an ambitious restoration experiment, the scientists re-introduced a
pack of wolves in the Yellowstone National Park in the year 1995.
Once the wolves arrived, even though few in number, the same had
remarkable effects. The obvious outcome of such reintroduction was
the reduction in the population of deer; but even more significantly,
the wolves changed the behaviour of the deer which started avoiding
certain parts of the park, particularly the valleys and gorges. This
resulted in regeneration of the flora of the national park and an
increase in the height of trees which quintupled in mere six years.
The valley sides quickly became forests of aspen and willow
and cottonwood. Consequently, the birds started migrating to the
Yellowstone National Park, sparking an increase in migratory and
songbirds. The population of beavers increased and like the wolves,
they too are ecosystem engineers who built natural dams in the
rivers, creating habitat for otters, muskrats, ducks, fishes, reptiles
and amphibians.
The wolves hunted the coyotes as well, which resulted in the
rise of rabbits and mice, enticing more hawks, weasels and
foxes. The ravens and eagles came down to feed on the carrion
198 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

left by the wolves. The regeneration of shrubs also aided in the
growth of bears, who mostly fed on berries and the carrion. The
bears also reinforced the impact of the wolves by killing deer.
Most interestingly, the experiment of reintroduction of the wolves
helped in stabilising the water banks and fixing the course of
rivers. There was reduction in soil erosion due to recovery of the
valley and the vegetation. So, a small number of wolves left an
indelible mark in the transformation of the first national park of the
world, the Yellowstone National Park and its physical geography
within a short period of around 20 years. This kind of regenerative
effect cannot even be thought of by human efforts whatever the
magnitude be thereof.
Looking at the empirical evidence of the impact of carnivores in
maintaining the ecosystem of forests, the efforts of tiger conservation
in the Jim Corbett National Park, an iconic National Park of this
country is imperative and of utmost importance.
I. BACKGROUND
1. The background leading to the present proceedings, in brief, is thus :
1.1 Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who has intervened in the present
proceedings, had approached the Delhi High Court by filing
W.P. (C) No. 8729 of 2021 and CM Application No. 27181 of
2021, alleging therein that illegal construction of bridges and
walls within the Tiger Breeding Habitat of Corbett Tiger Reserve
and that too, without the approval from the Competent Authority
were being carried out. He had sought intervention of the Court
to protect and conserve the Biological Diversity, flora and fauna
as well as the ecology of the Corbett National Park.
1.2 The Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 23rd August 2021,
disposed of the said petition observing thus :
“We have heard the Petitioner. Looking to the averments in
the writ petition and the provisions of the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972, more particularly, Section 38(O)(b) thereof, we
deem it appropriate, at this stage, to direct the Respondent
to treat this writ petition as a Representation and look
into the issues flagged and highlighted by the Petitioner.
Needless to state that in case the Respondent finds merit
in the issues raised, necessary action shall be taken by
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 199

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

the Respondent, in accordance with law, keeping in mind
the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the
necessity of conserving the flora and fauna as well as the
ecology of the National Park. For the purpose of taking
a decision and consequential action, if any, it is open to
the Respondent to call for an inspection report, in order
to verify the factual status with respect to the allegations
made in the writ petition. The exercise shall be carried
out by the Respondent as expeditiously as possible and
practicable.”
1.3 The Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital,
noticing a news published in “Times of India”, vide its order
dated 27th October 2021, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 178 of 2021,
took suo motu cognizance of the illegal construction activities
being undertaken by unknown persons. It will be relevant to
refer to the said order, which reads thus :
“A news item has appeared in the “Times of India”
newspaper, dated 23.10.2021, regarding the illegal
construction activities being undertaken by unknown
persons, which are clearly in violation of the Forest Laws.
The said illegal construction activities are being undertaken
in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, one of the premier Tiger
Reserves of the country.
2. According to the said article, a Committee of the
National Tiger Conservation Authority (“NTCA”
for short) had recently visited the Corbett Tiger
Reserve. The Committee discovered not only illegal
construction of bridges and buildings, but even
the felling of trees. The Committee further noted
that there has been violation of the provisions
of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, as well as the Indian Forest
Act, 1927. Surprisingly, a single lane road is being
constructed in the core/critical habitat of the Corbett
Tiger Reserve. Despite the fact that the Committee
has recommended that all illegal constructions
in Morghatti and Pakhrau FRH campuses be
demolished, and eco-restoration work be undertaken
200 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

with immediate effect, no concrete steps have been
taken by the respondents.
3. Moreover, despite the fact that the Committee
recommended that the Ministry of Environment should
initiate action against the responsible officers, as per
the provisions contained in the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980, not even initial steps have been taken even
by the Ministry. Therefore, this Court issues notices
to the respondents.
4. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Assistant Solicitor
General for the Union of India, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent no.1.
5. Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned Chief Standing Counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand, accepts notice on behalf
of the respondent nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
6. Issue notice to the respondent no.4. Rule made
returnable within four weeks.
7. The Registry is directed to implead the National Tiger
Conservation Authority as a party respondent in this
Writ Petition.
8. Meanwhile, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
(General), Uttarakhand, the respondent no.5, the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife),
Uttarakhand, the respondent no.6, and the Director
of the Corbett National Park, Uttarakhand, the
respondent no.8, are directed to inspect the site,
and to submit a report with regard to the nature and
extent of the illegal constructions being carried out,
with regard to the persons, who are responsible for
carrying out the said illegal constructions, and with
regard to the concrete steps taken by the respondent
nos. 5, 6 and 8 against such persons, and against
the illegal constructions.”
1.4 It appears that in the meantime, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal
also filed an Application No.1558 of 2021 before the Central
Empowered Committee (“CEC” for short), bringing to the notice
of the CEC the following :
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 201

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

"a. Illegal felling of trees in the name of establishment
of Tiger Safari in Gujjar Sot, Pakhrau Block,
Sonandi Range, Kalagarh Division, Corbett Tiger
Reserve;
b. Illegal construction of buildings and waterbodies etc.
by way of cutting trees illegally in
(i) Saneh Forest Rest House toward Pakhrau
Forest Rest House.
(ii) Pakhrau Forest Rest House towards Morghatti
Forest Rest House and
(iii) Moraghatti Forest Rest House towards Kalagarh
Forest Rest House.
According to the Applicant the above said activities within
buffer area of Corbett Tiger Reserve apart from being illegal
also cause irreversible damage to the Biological Diversity,
Ecology, Flora and Fauna in the Corbett landscape. The
Applicant has requested that appropriate action be taken
in accordance with law.”
1.5 It further appears that I.A. No. 186910 of 2022 came to be
registered in the present proceedings based on the CEC Report
No.30 of 2022 in Application No.1557 of 2022 filed before it by
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal. It was alleged by Mr. Gaurav Kumar
Bansal in the said proceedings that in the Rajaji National Park
as well as in the Corbett National Park, illegal roads were being
constructed. In the said I.A., we have passed the following order
on 11th January 2023 :
“I.A. NO.186910/2022
[CEC REPORT 30/2022- REPORT OF CEC IN APPLN.
NO.1557/2022 FILED BEFORE IT BY GAURAV KR.
BANSAL]
IN RE : GAURAV KR. BANSAL
Issue notice, returnable on 08.02.2023.
Shri Abhishek Atrey, learned counsel, appears and accepts
notice on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand.
202 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

By way of ad interim order, we direct that all construction
activities in respect of the road in question shall be stopped,
until further orders.”
1.6 Shri Bansal had also filed a Contempt Petition (Civil) No.319
of 2019, alleging that the Authorities had acted in violation of
the orders passed by this Court. We, therefore, passed the
following order on 11th January, 2023 :
“Shri Mahendra Vyas, Member of the CEC, states that
report of the CEC would be filed within ten days and
copies thereof shall also be supplied to the counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand.
The respondent(s)/State shall file reply to the report of the
CEC prior to 03.02.2023.
Put up on 08.02.2023.”
1.7 When the aforesaid I.A.(s) and Contempt Petition(s) along with
I.A. No.20650 of 2023, containing the report of the CEC on
Application No.1558 of 2021 filed by Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal
before it was placed before us on 8th February 2023, we have
passed the following order :
“CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.319/2021, I.A.
NOS.186910/2022 AND 20650/2023 (ITEM NO.8.)
1. Issue notice in I.A. Nos.186910/2022 and 20650/2023 to
the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
and the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA),
returnable on 15.03.2023.
2. In addition to the usual mode, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to serve notice through the Standing Counsel
for the respondent/State.
3. A perusal of the report(s) would reveal that various
constructions have been carried out within the area of the
Tiger Reserve. The photograph would show that a cordoned
area has been constructed between the Tiger Reserve.
4. Mr. Abhishek Attri, learned counsel appearing for the State
of Uttrakhand, submits that the concept of jungle tourism
permits such a safari to be constructed in jungle areas,
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 203

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

and according to the learned counsel, such a phenomenon
is acceptable worldwide.
5. Prima facie, we do not appreciate the necessity of having a
zoo inside Tiger Reserves or National Parks. The concept
of protecting Tiger Reserves and National Parks is that the
fauna must be permitted to reside in the natural habitat
and not the artificial environs.
6. We, therefore, call upon the NTCA to explain the rationale
behind granting such a permission for permitting Tiger
Safaris within Tiger Reserves and National Parks.
7. Until further orders, we restrain the authorities from making
any construction within the areas notified as Tiger Reserves
and National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
8. The State of Uttarakhand is directed to file its reply in I.A.
Nos.186910/2022 and 20650/2023, within three weeks.
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.302/2020 (ITEM NO.9)
List on 13.02.2023.”
1.8 Subsequently, an I.A. came to be filed by the State of
Uttarakhand for modification of the order passed by this Court
dated 8th February 2023. It was submitted in the I.A. that the
State of Uttarakhand was not in a position to even carry out the
routine management activities, such as construction of watch
towers, water bodies, and other necessary activities required for
the day-to-day management of the Sanctuary, National Parks,
and Reserves. It was submitted on behalf of the State that all
such works are covered and approved by this Court in its order
of 14th September 2007, upon recommendation of the CEC. In
the said I.A., it was submitted that all illegal constructions have
since been demolished and even the debris has been removed.
The State of Uttarakhand, therefore, prayed for modification of
the order of this Court dated 8th February 2023.
1.9 We passed the following order dated 28th November 2023 :
"1. I.A.No.181182 of 2023 is filed for modification of the order
dated 08th February 2023 permitting the construction
activities mentioned in paragraph 6 and 8 of I.A. No.181182
of 2023.
204 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, has raised
concern about some of the items with regard to which
permission is sought.
3. We find that most of the items for which the permission is
sought are essential for maintaining the Tiger Reserves,
National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
4. Therefore, we allow the construction activities as mentioned
in paragraph 6 and 8 of the I.A. No.181182 of 2023.
5. If under the garb of the orders passed by this Court, the
State Government misuses the liberty and raises some
constructions which are unnecessary, the same can always
be brought to the notice of the Court.
6. However, taking into consideration the past experience with
regard to illegal construction in Jim Corbett National Park
and Rajaji National Park, we warn the State Government
that it shall ensure that the aforesaid constructions are
made strictly in accordance with the relevant guidelines.
7. With these observations and directions, these applications
are disposed of.”
1.10 On 11th January 2024, we segregated the Contempt Petition
(C) No. 319 of 2021 and I.A. No.186910 of 2022, since they
pertained to the Rajaji National Park.
1.11 In the meantime, Writ Petition No. 178 of 2021 was also heard by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
on 1st September 2023. The judgment in the said matter came
to be delivered on 6th September 2023. The operative part of
the judgment and order dated 6th September 2023 reads thus :
"29. This Court, after considering the material on record,
comes to the conclusion that the present matter
falls within the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble
Constitution Bench and we are satisfied that the material
on record does disclose a prima facie case calling for
an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
30. Therefore, the present matter is referred to C.B.I. for
proper and uninfluenced investigation in accordance
with law.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 205

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

31. A copy of this order be sent to the Director, C.B.I.,
New Delhi for compliance.
32. All the authorities in the State, if requested, are
directed to cooperate with the C.B.I. in conducting
fair investigation of the case.
33. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the allegations or make any
comment on the contents of the enquiries and reports.”
1.12 We have heard the I.A. No.20650 of 2023 about the issues
concerning the Corbett National Park on the 11th and 12th of
January 2024.
2. A perusal of report of the CEC, which is numbered as I.A. No.20650
of 2023 as well as other reports submitted by various authorities,
which were also taken into consideration by the CEC in its report,
depicts a bleak picture of things in the Corbett National Park which
is one of the first National Parks established in India. The reports
make it clear that some of the Forest officers have blatantly resorted
to illegal felling of trees, proceeding with construction activities in
flagrant disregard of the provisions of the law and orders of this
Court. We therefore decided to treat this as a test case and determine
as to what directions are necessary to be issued, so that in future,
such illegal activities are not repeated and as to what measures are
required to be resorted to for protecting the precious wildlife.
3. We extensively heard Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae,
Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State
of Uttarakhand, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Gaurav Kumar
Bansal, applicant-in-person.
II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
4. The submissions made by Mr. K. Parameshwar could be summarized
as under :
(i) The forests of the Corbett Tiger Reserve form an essential
corridor link between the Corbett and the Rajaji National Park
through the Rawasana – Sonanadi Corridor in the Lansdowne
Forest Division. The construction of ‘Tiger Safari’ would lead
to habitat fragmentation.
206 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(ii) That, under Section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as “WLP Act”), the State Government,
on the recommendations of the Tiger Conservation Authority, is
required to notify an area as a tiger reserve. It is also required
to prepare a Tiger Conservation Plan (hereinafter referred to
as “TCP”) including the staff development and deployment
plan for the proper management of each area to ensure the
protection of the tiger reserve, ecologically compatible land
uses in the tiger reserves and the forestry operations of regular
forest divisions.
(iii) That, under sub-section (4) of Section 38V of the WLP Act,
the concept of integrity of Tiger Reserve requires protection of
buffer area and adequate dispersal for the species.
(iv) That, the TCP prepared by the National Tiger Conservation
Authority (“NTCA” for short) proposed a Safari at the
Karnashram area of Lansdowne Forest Division. However, the
Central Zoo Authority (“CZA” for short) unilaterally changed the
proposed site to Pakhrau Block, Kalagarh Division.
(v) That, the WLP Act emphasizes on the conservation of wildlife
and not tourism. However, establishing a zoo in a buffer area
would amount to giving preference to tourism over wildlife
protection.
(vi) That, conservation of wildlife should be eco-centric and not
anthropocentric.
(vii) That, the provisions of the WLP Act would reveal that the
National Board of Wildlife, State Board of Wildlife, Chief Wildlife
Warden, and the NTCA are experts for in situ conservation of
wildlife whereas the CZA is an expert body for ex situ mode
of conservation.
(viii) That, the final authority insofar as in situ ‘Tiger Safari’ is
concerned should be exclusively within the domain of NTCA,
which is an expert body insofar as conservation and protection
of Tigers is concerned. He therefore submits that the 2019
Guidelines, which restore the primacy to the CZA, are against
the said principle.
(ix) That, until 2016, the regulatory regime only recognized safaris
as being an ex-situ mode of conservation.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 207

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

(x) That, the ‘Tiger Safari’ is not defined under the WLP Act or
any other statute. The concept of ‘Safari’ is found only in the
proviso to Section 33(a). The proviso to Section 33(a) also
bans the construction of ‘hotels, zoos and safari parks’ inside
a sanctuary and National Parks without the prior approval of
the National Board.
(xi) That, for the first time, the concept of ‘‘Tiger Safari’’ in the wild
was introduced by the Government in the Tourism Guidelines,
2012. It provided for the creation of ‘Tiger Safaris’ in the buffer
areas of tiger reserves ‘which experience immense tourist influx
in the core/critical tiger habitat for viewing tigers.’
(xii) That, the ‘‘Tiger Safari’’ as is envisaged, is not a measure of
conservation but a means for tourism.
(xiii) That, though the 2016 Guidelines provided that the injured,
conflict or orphaned tigers may be exhibited in ‘Tiger Safaris’,
the 2019 Guidelines provided that the animals shall be
selected as per Section 38I of the WLP Act, providing thereby
that the animals from the zoos would be brought in the ‘Tiger
Safaris’.
(xiv) That, the understanding of the NTCA is that ‘Tiger Safaris’
are merely ‘zoos’ made inside the Tiger Reserve, which is
erroneous.
(xv) That, the 2019 Guidelines which permit the animals from zoos
outside their natural habitat to be relocated in the ‘Tiger Safaris’
situated in the buffer zone, would lead to the risk of zoonotic
disease transmission. It is submitted that, if the animals from
zoos are allowed into the Tiger Reserves, it will not only cause
interference with the natural habitat of the animals, but the
onset of zoonotic disease would be highly dangerous to the
tigers in the National Park.
(xvi) Insofar as existing zoos in the Tiger Reserves are concerned,
the said zoos were established much before the creation of the
NTCA and the conservation of tigers through Tiger Reserves.
(xvii) That, it is necessary to employ the precautionary principle so
as to prevent harm that would be caused on account of the
relocation of animals from the zoos to the Tiger Reserves/
Safaris.
208 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(xviii) That, the delegation of power by the NTCA to the CZA, which is
an expert body only for captive animals in ex situ conservation
violates the entire scheme of the WLP Act.
(xix) That, the Court must employ the restorative principle to restore
the damages caused to the environment when constructions
were raised for the Safari.
(xx) Mr. Parmeshwar has also given various suggestions for the
protection of wildlife and restoration of environmental damages
as has been done in the case of the Jim Corbett National Park.
5. The submissions of Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni could be summarized as
under :
(i) It is submitted that insofar as the illegal constructions are
concerned, the same has already been demolished and even
debris has been removed.
(ii) That, all illegal construction works of buildings including the
Forest Rest House at Mor Ghatti, Pakhrau, Kugadda Forest
Camp, and Saneh Forest Rest House were being carried out
by the Divisional Forest Officer (“DFO” for short), Kalagarh
without the requisite administrative and financial approvals of
the Competent Authority. That, the said works were executed
solely under the orders of the DFO, Kalagarh, who was not
competent to sanction the said works.
(iii) That, proceedings have been initiated against the erring
officials/officers. Immediately Mr. J.S. Suhag, the then Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests (“PCCF” for short) Wildlife, since
deceased, was suspended; the Field Director of Corbett was
transferred and the DFO Kalagarh along with the Range Officer,
Kalagarh and several other officials lower in rank were also
suspended.
(iv) An FIR was also lodged by the Vigilance Department against
the DFO Kishan Chand and a Forest Ranger for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120B,
218/34 IPC, Section 26 of the Forest Act and Section 13(1)(a)
and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(v) The buffer areas are peripheral to core areas. As per Section
38V(4) of the WLP Act, a lesser degree of habitat protection
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 209

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

is accorded and this aims to promote co-existence between
wildlife and human activity with due recognition of the
livelihood, developmental, social, and cultural rights of the local
people. However, in carrying out these activities, the requisite
permissions have been taken.
(vi) That, the project for establishing ‘Tiger Safari’ was not initiated
by the State of Uttarakhand. It was NTCA, which wrote to the
Field Directors of four (04) Tiger Reserves across the county,
by letter dated 19th December 2014, calling upon them to send
a proposal for the establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’ in the buffer
area of Tiger Reserves.
(vii) Pursuant to this, a proposal was forwarded by the State of
Uttarakhand on the 5th of June 2015 to establish the ‘Tiger Safari’
and an in-principal approval was granted by the NTCA with a
further direction to forward the same to the CZA for vetting.
(viii) That, under the provisions of Section 38H of the WLP Act,
the CZA is the statutory authority for grant of approval for the
establishment of ‘Tiger Safaris’.
(ix) That, TCP for the Corbett Tiger Reserve was forwarded by the
State of Uttarakhand to the Government of India on 27th January
2015. That, the Government of India granted its approval on 4th
March 2015 to the TCP prepared by the State of Uttarakhand.
The said TCP also had a plan for the setting up of a rescue
centre-cum-tiger safari in the buffer area of Corbett Tiger Reserve.
(x) Vide letter dated 12th February 2019, the CZA conveyed its
approval for the establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’ in the Gujar
Sot, Pakhrau Block, Sona Nadi Range, Kalagarh Division,
Corbett Tiger Reserve (hereinafter referred to as “Pakhrau”)
on an area of 106.16 Hectares.
(xi) Though initially it was proposed to establish the ‘Tiger Safari’
at Karnashram area of Lansdowne Forest Division, the said
site was found unsuitable. The site at Pakhrau was found to
be more suitable since it was at the edge of the buffer zone.
(xii) After the CZA granted its approval, an in-principal approval
under the Forest Conservation Act was granted by the
Government of India on 30th October 2020.
210 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(xiii) That, at the relevant time, setting up of a ‘Tiger Safari’ was
considered as a ‘part forest and part non-forestry’ activity. As
such, the State of Uttarakhand had approached the Government
of India for getting the Forest Clearance for 15% of the area,
as mandated. However, as of today, the position is different
inasmuch as the establishment of zoos and the ‘Tiger Safari’
are now considered as ‘forestry activities’ and do not require
any Forest Clearance.
(xiv) Thereafter, Stage-II clearance was granted on 10th September
2021.
(xv) As such, the ‘Tiger Safari’ was established due to the initiative
taken by the NTCA and after the grant of all the requisite
approvals.
(xvi) It was submitted that the project “Tiger Safari’ has been
completed to the extent of 80%, investing a huge amount of
public money.
(xvii) As such, the allegations about the violation of statutory
provisions for the establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ are without
substance.
(xviii) That, the report of the Forest Survey of India (“FSI” for short)
which was entrusted with the work of carrying out the survey
regarding the illegal felling of trees is concerned, the same
does not depict a correct picture.
(xix) That, the total area involved in the construction of the ‘Tiger
Safari’ was approximately 16 Hectares and it is impossible that
in such a small area, 6000 trees could be felled.
(xx) When the State applied for Forest Clearance for the
establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ project, the number of trees
present in the 16 Hectares was enumerated after counting
them physically which was also contained in the proposal. The
said proposal mentioned that there are 3,620 trees standing
on the site.
(xxi) In the survey conducted by the Forest Department, it was found
that, apart from 163 trees for which there was valid permission,
an additional 97 trees were cut down in the process.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 211

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

(xxii) That, the FSI report is based on Google Image calculation and
does not depict the correct picture.
(xxiii) That, the FSI was asked by the State of Uttarakhand to provide
the methodology used for arriving at its report, but the FSI
failed to do so.
(xxiv) That, the works which are carried out after obtaining the
permission of this Court by order dated 28th November 2023
are all routine management activities, such as setting up of
watch towers and other necessary activities required for the
day-to-day management of the Sanctuaries, National Parks
and Reserves.
(xxv) Insofar as Interpretation Centre is concerned, it was submitted
that the Interpretation Centre has been held to be a ‘forestry
activity’ not requiring Forest Clearance from the Central
Government.
(xxvi) It was further submitted that, the area of Pakhrau Tiger Safari
is 106.16 Hectares, which amounts to only 0.082% of the total
area of the Corbett Tiger Reserve and 0.22% of the buffer area
of the Tiger Reserve. In any case, it is situated at the edge
of the buffer zone. On the other side of the buffer zone, there
are farm lands of the villagers residing in the adjoining area.
As such, the contention that the establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’
would shrink the available tiger habitat and as such, obstruct the
corridors for the movements of the tigers is without substance.
6. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG submitted that the 2016
Guidelines took into consideration the concern of injured tigers,
conflict tigers, or orphaned tiger cubs. However, the 2019 Guidelines
were issued to bring it in tune with Section 38I of the WLP Act. It is
submitted that, in the TCP submitted by the State of Uttarakhand, a
‘Tiger Safari’ was proposed at the Karnashram area of Lansdowne
Forest Division. Ms. Bhati submitted that there are about 20 Safaris
situated in the National Parks. Some of them have been operating
since the 1970s.
7. Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal reiterated that various illegal constructions
were made in the Corbett National Park in total violation of the
statutory provisions. He further submitted that illegal felling of trees
was also done to facilitate the illegal construction.
212 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

III. STATUTORY PROVISIONS
8. Before we consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it will be relevant to refer to certain provisions of the WLP Act.
9. The statement of objects and reasons for the WLP Act would reveal
that the enactment of the WLP Act was necessitated since it was
noticed that there was rapid decline of India’s wild animals and birds,
which was one of the richest and most varied in the world. Some
wild animals and birds had already become extinct in the country and
others were in danger of being so. Areas that were once teeming with
wildlife had become devoid of it and even in Sanctuaries and National
Parks, the protection afforded to wildlife needed to be improved. It
was noticed that, the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912
(8 of 1912) had become completely outmoded. The existing State
laws were not only outdated but provided punishments that were
not commensurate with the offence and the financial benefits which
accrue from poaching and trade in wildlife produce. It was noticed
that such laws mainly related to the control of hunting and did not
emphasize the other factors which were also prime reasons for the
decline of India’s wildlife, namely, taxidermy and trade in wildlife and
products derived therefrom.
10. However, since the subject matters were relatable to Entry 20 of the
State list in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the
Parliament had no power to make a law unless the Legislatures of two
or more States passed a resolution in pursuance of Article 252 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, 11 States had passed resolutions
to that effect. In this background, the WLP Act came to be enacted.
11. The long title of the WLP Act was amended by the Wild Life (Protection)
Amendment Act, 2022 (No. 18 of 2022), which reads thus :
“An Act to provide for the [conservation, protection and
management of wild life] and for matters connected
therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to
ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the
country.”
[emphasis supplied]
12. Prior to the aforesaid amendment, the bracketed portion read thus :
“protection of wild animals, birds and plants”
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 213

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

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “animal”, which
reads thus :
“(1) “animal” includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
fish, other chordates and invertebrates and also includes
their young and eggs;”
14. Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “captive animal”,
which reads thus :
“(5) “captive animal” means any animal, specified in
Schedule I or Schedule II, which is captured or kept or
bred in captivity;”
15. Sub-section (20A) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “National
Board”, which reads thus :
“(20A) “National Board” means the National Board for Wild
Life constituted under Section 5A;”
16. Sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “National Park”,
which reads thus :
“(21) “National Park” means an area declared, whether
under Section 35 or Section 38, or deemed, under sub-
section (3) of Section 66, to be declared, as a National Park;”
17. Sub-section (24A) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “protected
area”, which reads thus :
“(24A) “protected area” means a National Park, a sanctuary,
a conservation reserve or a community reserve notified
under Sections 18, 35, 36-A and 36-C of the Act;”
18. Sub-section (26) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “sanctuary”,
which reads thus :
“(26) “sanctuary” means an area declared as a sanctuary
by notification under the provisions of Chapter IV of this
Act and shall also include a deemed sanctuary under
sub-section (4) of Section 66;”
19. Sub-Section (36) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “wild animal”,
which reads thus :
“(36) “wild animal” means any animal specified in Schedule
I or Schedule II and found wild in nature;”
214 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

20. Sub-section (39) of Section 2 of the WLP Act defines “zoo”, which
reads thus :
“(39) “zoo” means an establishment, whether stationary or
mobile, where captive animals are kept for exhibiting to the
public or ex-situ conservation and includes a circus and off-
exhibit facilities such as rescue centres and conservation
breeding centres, but does not include an establishment
of a licensed dealer in captive animals.”
21. Chapter IV of the WLP Act deals with “protected areas”. Section 18
provides for “Declaration of sanctuary”, which reads thus :
“18. Declaration of sanctuary.—(1) The State Government
may, by notification, declare its intention to constitute any
area other than an area comprised within any reserve
forest or the territorial waters as a sanctuary if it considers
that such area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral,
geomorphological, natural or zoological significance, for
the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild
life or its environment.
(2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall
specify, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of
such area.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it shall be
sufficient to describe the area by roads, rivers, ridges or
other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries.”
22. It will be relevant to refer to Section 33 of the WLP Act, which deals
with “Control of sanctuaries”. It reads thus :
“33. Control of sanctuaries.—The Chief Wild Life Warden
shall be the authority who shall control, manage and protect
all sanctuaries in accordance with such management
plans for the sanctuary approved by him as per the
guidelines issued by the Central Government and in case
the sanctuary also falls under the Scheduled Areas or
areas where the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
is applicable, in accordance with the management plan
for such sanctuary prepared after due consultation with
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 215

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

the Gram Sabha concerned and for that purpose, within
the limits of any sanctuary,—
(a) may construct such roads, bridges, buildings,
fences or barrier gates, and carry out such other
works as he may consider necessary for the purposes
of such sanctuary :
Provided that no construction of tourist lodges,
including Government lodges, for commercial
purposes, hotels, zoos and safari parks shall be
undertaken inside a sanctuary except with the
prior approval of the National Board;
(b) shall take such steps as will ensure the security
of wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation
of the sanctuary and wild animals therein;
(c) may take such measures, in the interests of
wild life, as he may consider necessary for the
improvement of any habitat;
(d) may regulate, control or prohibit, in keeping with
the interests of wild life, the grazing or movement
of livestock.”
[emphasis supplied]
23. Section 35 of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration of National Parks”,
which reads thus :
“35. Declaration of National Parks.—(1) Whenever it
appears to the State Government that an area, whether
within a sanctuary or not, is, by reason of its ecological,
faunal, floral, geomorphological or zoological association
or importance, needed to be constituted as a National Park
for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing
wild life therein or its environment, it may, by notification,
declare its intention to constitute such area as a National
Park :
Provided that where any part of the territorial waters
is proposed to be included in such National Park, the
provisions of Section 26A shall, as far as may be, apply
216 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

in relation to the declaration of a National Park as they
apply in relation to the declaration of a sanctuary.
(2) The notification referred to in sub-section (1) shall define
the limits of the area which is intended to be declared as
a National Park.
(3) Where any area is intended to be declared as a
National Park, the provisions of Sections 19 to 26-A [both
inclusive except clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section
24)] shall, as far as may be, apply to the investigation and
determination of claims, and extinguishment of rights, in
relation to any land in such area as they apply to the said
matters in relation to any land in a sanctuary.
(3A) When the State Government declares its intention
under sub-section (1) to constitute any area as a National
Park, the provisions of Sections 27 to 33-A (both inclusive),
shall come into effect forthwith, until the publication of
the notification declaring such National Park under sub-
section (4).
(3B) Till such time as the rights of the affected persons
are finally settled under Sections 19 to 26A [both inclusive
except clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 24], the
State Government shall make alternative arrangements
required for making available fuel, fodder and other forest
produce to the persons affected, in terms of their rights
as per the Government records.
(4) When the following events have occurred, namely,—
(a) the period for preferring claims has elapsed, and
all claims, if any, made in relation to any land in an
area intended to be declared as a National Park,
have been disposed of by the State Government, and
(b) all rights in respect of lands proposed to be
included in the National Park have become vested
in the State Government,
the State Government shall publish a notification
specifying the limits of the area which shall be
comprised within the National Park and declare that
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 217

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

the said area shall be a National Park on and from
such date as may be specified in the notification.
(5) No alteration of the boundaries of a National Park
by the State Government shall be made except on a
recommendation of the National Board.
(6) No person shall destroy, exploit or remove any Wild
Life including forest produce from a National Park or
destroy or damage or divert the habitat of any wild animal
by any act whatsoever or divert, stop or enhance the flow
of water into or outside the National Park, except under
and in accordance with a permit granted by the Chief Wild
Life Warden, and no such permit shall be granted unless
the State Government being satisfied in consultation with
the National Board that such removal of wild life from the
National Park or the change in the flow of water into or
outside the National Park is necessary for the improvement
and better management of wild life therein, authorises the
issue of such permit :
Provided that where the forest produce is removed from
a National Park, the same may be used for meeting the
personal bona fide needs of the people living in and
around the National Park and shall not be used for any
commercial purpose.
(7) No grazing of any livestock shall be permitted in a
National Park and no livestock shall be allowed to enter
therein except where such livestock is used as a vehicle
by a person authorised to enter such National Park.
(8) The provisions of Sections 27 and 28, Section 30 to
32 (both inclusive), and clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section
33, Section 33A and Section 34 shall, as far as may be,
apply in relation to a National Park as they apply in relation
to a sanctuary.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, in case of
an area, whether within a sanctuary or not, where the rights
have been extinguished and the land has become vested
in the State Government under any Act or otherwise, such
area may be notified by it, by a notification, as a National
218 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Park and the proceedings under Sections 19 to 26 (both
inclusive) and the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4)
of this section shall not apply.”
24. Section 36A of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration and management
of a conservation reserve”, which reads thus :
“36A. Declaration and management of a conservation
reserve.—(1) The State Government may, after having
consultations with the local communities, declare any area
owned by the Government, particularly the areas adjacent
to National Parks and sanctuaries and those areas which
link one protected area with another, as a conservation
reserve for protecting landscapes, seascapes, flora and
fauna and their habitat :
Provided that where the conservation reserve includes
any land owned by the Central Government, its prior
concurrence shall be obtained before making such
declaration.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub-
sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32 and
clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 shall, as far as may be,
apply in relation to a conservation reserve as they apply
in relation to a sanctuary.”
25. Section 36C of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration and management
of community reserve”, which reads thus :
“36-C. Declaration and management of community
reserve.—(1) The State Government may, where the
community or an individual has volunteered to conserve
wild life and its habitat, declare any private or community
land not comprised within a National Park, sanctuary
or a conservation reserve, as a community reserve,
for protecting fauna, flora and traditional or cultural
conservation values and practices.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub-
sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32
and clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 shall, as far as may
be, apply in relation to a community reserve as they apply
in relation to a sanctuary.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 219

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

(3) After the issue of notification under sub-section (1), no
change in the land use pattern shall be made within the
community reserve, except in accordance with a resolution
passed by the management committee and approval of
the same by the State Government.”
26. Chapter IVA of the WLP Act deals with “Central Zoo Authority and
Recognition of Zoos”. The only relevant provision for consideration
of the issue in the present matter is Section 38-I, which reads thus :
“38-I. Acquisition of animals by a zoo.—(1) Subject to
the other provisions of this Act, no zoo shall acquire, sell
or transfer any wild animal or captive animal specified in
Schedules I except with the previous permission of the
Authority.
(2) No zoo shall acquire, sell or transfer any wild or captive
animal except from or to a recognized zoo :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a
conservation breeding centre.”
27. Chapter IVB of the WLP Act deals with “National Tiger Conservation
Authority”. Section 38-O deals with “Powers and Functions of Tiger
Conservation Authority”, which reads thus :
“38-O. Powers and functions of Tiger Conservation
Authority.—(1) The Tiger Conservation Authority shall
have the following powers and perform the following
functions, namely : —
(a) to approve the Tiger Conservation Plan prepared
by the State Government under sub-section (3) of
Section 38V of this Act;
(b) evaluate and assess various aspect of sustainable
ecology and disallow any ecologically unsustainable
land use such as, mining, industry and other projects
within the tiger reserves;
(c) lay down normative standards for tourism activities
and guidelines for project tiger from time to time for
tiger conservation in the buffer and core area of tiger
reserves and ensure their due compliance;
220 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(d) provide for management focus and measures for
addressing conflicts of men and wild animals and to
emphasise on co-existence in forest areas outside
the National Parks, sanctuaries or tiger reserve, in
the working plan code;
(e) provide information on protection measures including
future conservation plan, estimation of population of
tiger and its natural prey species, status of habitats,
disease surveillance, mortality survey, patrolling,
reports on untoward happenings and such other
management aspects as it may deem fit including
future plan conservation;
(f) approve, co-ordinate research and monitoring on
tiger, co-predators, prey, habitat, related ecological
and socio-economic parameters and their evaluation;
(g) ensure that the tiger reserves and areas linking
one protected area or tiger reserve with another
protected area or tiger reserve are not diverted for
ecologically unsustainable uses, except in public
interest and with the approval of the National
Board for Wild Life and on the advice of the Tiger
Conservation Authority;
(h) facilitate and support the tiger reserve management
in the State for biodiversity conservation initiatives
through eco-development and people’s participation
as per approved management plans and to support
similar initiatives in adjoining areas consistent with
the Central and State laws;
(i) ensure critical support including scientific, information
technology and legal support for better implementation
of the tiger conservation plan;
(j) facilitate ongoing capacity building programme for skill
development of officers and staff of tiger reserves; and
(k) perform such other functions as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act with regard to
conservation of tigers and their habitat.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 221

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

(2) The Tiger Conservation Authority may, in the exercise
of its powers and performance of its functions under this
chapter, issue directions in writing to any person, officer
or authority for the protection of tiger or tiger reserves and
such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply
with the directions :
Provided that no such direction shall interfere with or affect
the rights of local people particularly the Scheduled Tribes.”
28. Section 38V of the WLP Act deals with “Tiger Conservation Plan”,
which reads thus :
“38V. Tiger Conservation Plan.—(1) The State Government
shall, on the recommendations of the Tiger Conservation
Authority, notify an area as a tiger reserve.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub-
sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32
and clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of this Act shall, as
far as may be, apply in relation to a tiger reserve as they
apply in relation to a sanctuary.
(3) The State Government shall prepare a Tiger Conservation
Plan including staff development and deployment plan for
the proper management of each area referred to in sub-
section (1), so as to ensure—
(a) protection of tiger reserve and providing site specific
habitat inputs for a viable population of tigers, co-
predators and prey animals without distorting the
natural prey-predator ecological cycle in the habitat;
(b) ecologically compatible land uses in the tiger
reserves and areas linking one protected area or tiger
reserve with another for addressing the livelihood
concerns of local people, so as to provide dispersal
habitats and corridor for spill over population of wild
animals from the designated core areas of tiger
reserves or from tiger breeding habitats within other
protected areas;
(c) the forestry operations of regular forest divisions and
those adjoining tiger reserves are not incompatible
with the needs of tiger conservation.
222 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(4) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, the State
Government shall, while preparing a Tiger Conservation
Plan, ensure the agricultural, livelihood, developmental
and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing
forests or a tiger reserve.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the
expression “tiger reserve” includes,—
(i) core or critical tiger habitat areas of National Parks
and sanctuaries, where it has been established,
on the basis of scientific and objective criteria, that
such areas are required to be kept as inviolate for
the purposes of tiger conservation, without affecting
the rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other
forest dwellers, and notified as such by the State
Government in consultation with an Expert Committee
constituted for the purpose;
(ii) buffer or peripheral area consisting of the area
peripheral to critical tiger habitat or core area,
identified and established in accordance with the
provisions contained in Explanation (i) above, where
a lesser degree of habitat protection is required to
ensure the integrity of the critical tiger habitat with
adequate dispersal for tiger species, and which
aim at promoting co-existence between wildlife and
human activity with due recognition of the livelihood,
developmental, social and cultural rights of the
local people, wherein the limits of such areas are
determined on the basis of scientific and objective
criteria in consultation with the concerned Gram
Sabha and an Expert Committee constituted for the
purpose.
(5) Save as for voluntary relocation on mutually agreed
terms and conditions, provided that such terms and
conditions satisfy the requirements laid down in this sub-
section, no Scheduled Tribes or other forest dwellers shall
be resettled or have their rights adversely affected for the
purpose of creating inviolate areas for tiger conservation
unless—
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 223

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

(i) the process of recognition and determination of
rights and acquisition of land or forest rights of the
Scheduled Tribes and such other forest dwelling
persons is complete;
(ii) the concerned agencies of the State Government, in
exercise of their powers under this Act, establishes
with the consent of the Scheduled Tribes and such
other forest dwellers in the area, and in consultation
with an ecological and social scientist familiar with the
area, that the activities of the Scheduled Tribes and
other forest dwellers or the impact of their presence
upon wild animals is sufficient to cause irreversible
damage and shall threaten the existence of tigers
and their habitat;
(iii) the State Government, after obtaining the consent
of the Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers
inhabiting the area, and in consultation with an
independent ecological and social scientist familiar
with the area, has come to a conclusion that
other reasonable options of co-existence, are not
available;
(iv) resettlement or alternative package has been prepared
providing for livelihood for the affected individuals and
communities and fulfils the requirements given in the
National Relief and Rehabilitation Policy;
(v) the informed consent of the Gram Sabha concerned,
and of the persons affected, to the resettlement
programme has been obtained;
(vi) the facilities and land allocation at the resettlement
location are provided under the said programme,
otherwise their existing rights shall not be interfered
with.”
29. Section 38W of the WLP Act deals with “Alteration and de-notification
of tiger reserves”, which reads thus :
“38W. Alteration and de-notification of tiger reserves.—
(1) No alteration in the boundaries of a tiger reserve
224 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

shall be made except on a recommendation of the Tiger
Conservation Authority and the approval of the National
Board for Wild Life.
(2) No State Government shall de-notify a tiger reserve,
except in public interest with the approval of the Tiger
Conservation Authority and the National Board for Wild
Life.”
30. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 38XA of the WLP Act,
which reads thus :
“38-XA. Provisions of Chapter to be in addition to
provisions relating to sanctuaries and National
Parks.—The provisions contained in this Chapter shall
be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions
relating to sanctuaries and National Parks (whether
included and declared, or are in the process of being so
declared) included in a tiger reserve under this Act.”
31. A perusal of the entire scheme of the WLP Act read with the Statement
of objects and reasons would clearly reveal that the entire emphasis
is on “conservation, protection and management of the wildlife”.
The WLP Act also provides for the matters connected therewith or
ancillary or incidental thereto for the conservation, protection and
management of wildlife. It also emphasizes on ensuring the ecological
and environmental security of the country.
32. A perusal of the aforementioned provisions of the WLP Act would
reveal that various measures have been provided under the said
Act for the protection of protected areas. No doubt that the definition
of “protected area” as defined under sub-section (24A) of Section
2 of the WLP Act only includes a National Park, a sanctuary, a
conservation reserve, or a community reserve, which are notified
under Sections 18, 35, 36A and 36C of the WLP Act. However, the
harmonious construction of the various provisions of the WLP Act
would reveal that the legislature intended the “Tiger Reserves” to
be kept at a higher pedestal than a sanctuary, a National Park, a
conservation reserve, or a community reserve.
33. As discussed hereinabove, the declaration of sanctuary is as provided
under Section 18 of the WLP Act. We have already reproduced
Section 18 hereinabove.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 225

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

34. The Chief Wild Life Warden has been entrusted with the functions and
duties to control, manage, and protect all sanctuaries in accordance
with such management plans for the sanctuary as approved by him
as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government. Under
clause (a) of Section 33 of the WLP Act; though construction of roads,
bridges, buildings, fences or barrier gates, and such other works as
he may consider necessary for sanctuary is permissible, the proviso
thereto specifically prohibits the construction of tourist lodges including
Government lodges for commercial purposes. It further prohibits
the construction of hotels, zoos and safari parks inside a sanctuary
except with the prior approval of the National Board. Clause (b)
thereof requires the Chief Wild Life Warden to take such steps as
would ensure the security of wild animals in the sanctuary and the
preservation of the sanctuary and wild animals therein. He is also
authorized to take such measures, in the interests of wildlife, as he
may consider necessary for the improvement of any habitat. He is
also authorized to regulate, control, or prohibit, in keeping with the
interests of wildlife, the grazing or movement of livestock.
35. Section 35 of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration of National Parks”.
In view of sub-section (8) thereof, the provisions which are applicable
under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 33 of the WLP Act to the
‘sanctuary’ would also be applicable to a ‘National Park’.
36. Section 36A of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration and management
of a conservation reserve”. In view of sub-section (2) thereof, the
provisions under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of the WLP Act,
which are applicable to a ‘sanctuary’ shall, as far as may be, apply
also in relation to a ‘conservation reserve’.
37. Section 36C of the WLP Act deals with “Declaration and management
of community reserve”. In view of sub-section (2) thereof, the
provisions under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of the WLP Act,
which are applicable to a ‘sanctuary’ shall, as far as may be, apply
also in relation to a ‘community reserve’.
38. Section 38-O deals with “Powers and Functions of Tiger Conservation
Authority”. Clause (a) thereof provides for approval of the TCP
prepared by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section
38V of the WLP Act. Under clause (b), it has to evaluate and assess
various aspects of sustainable ecology and disallow any ecologically
unsustainable land use such as setting up of mining, industry, and
226 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

other projects within the tiger reserves. Under clause (c), it is required
to lay down normative standards for tourism activities and guidelines
for ‘Project Tiger’ from time to time for tiger conservation in the buffer
and core area of tiger reserves and ensure their due compliance.
Under clause (d), it has to provide for management focus and
measures for addressing conflicts of men and wild animals and to
emphasize on co-existence in forest areas outside the National Parks,
sanctuaries, or tiger reserves in the working plan code. Under clause
(e), it has to provide information on protection measures including
future conservation plans, estimation of the population of tigers and
its natural prey species, status of habitats, diseases surveillance,
mortality surveys, patrolling, reports on untoward happenings, and
such any other management aspects as it may deem fit including
future plans for conservation. Under clause (f), the Tiger Conservation
Authority is required to approve, co-ordinate research and monitor
on tigers, co-predators, prey, habitats, related ecological and socio-
economic parameters, and their evaluation. Under clause (g), it is
required to ensure that the tiger reserves and areas linking one
protected area or tiger reserve with another protected area or tiger
reserve are not diverted for ecologically unsustainable uses, except
in public interest and that too, with the approval of the National
Board for Wild Life and on the advice of the Tiger Conservation
Authority. Under clause (h), it is required to facilitate and support the
tiger reserve management in the State for biodiversity conservation
initiatives through eco-development and people’s participation as
per approved management plans and to support similar initiatives
in adjoining areas consistent with the Central and State laws. Under
clause (i), it is required to ensure critical support including scientific,
information technology, and legal support for better implementation
of the TCP. Under clause (j), it is required to facilitate an ongoing
capacity building programme for the skill development of officers and
staff of tiger reserves. Under clause (k), it is required to perform such
other functions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the
WLP Act with regard to the conservation of tigers and their habitat.
39. The importance given to the Tiger Conservation Authority can be seen
in sub-section (2) of Section 38-O of the WLP Act, which empowers
it to issue directions in writing to any person, officer or authority for
the protection of tiger or tiger reserves and such person, officer or
authority are bound to comply with the directions. No doubt that the
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 227

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

proviso thereto provides that no such direction shall interfere with or
affect the rights of local people, particularly the Scheduled Tribes.
40. Section 38V of the WLP Act deals with the notification of an area
as a tiger reserve and preparation of the “TCP”. Under sub-section
(1) thereof, the State Government is required to notify an area as a
tiger reserve, on such recommendations being made by the Tiger
Conservation Authority. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub-sections (2), (3) and
(4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32 and clauses (b) and (c) of Section
33 of the said Act shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to a tiger
reserve as they apply in relation to a sanctuary.
41. Under sub-section (3) of Section 38V, the State Government is required
to prepare a TCP including staff development and deployment plan for
the proper management of each area referred to in sub-section (1),
so as to ensure protection of tiger reserve and providing site specific
habitat inputs for a viable population of tigers, co-predators and prey
animals without distorting the natural prey-predator ecological cycle
in the habitat. It is also required to ensure ecologically compatible
land uses in the tiger reserves and areas linking one protected area
or tiger reserve with another for addressing the livelihood concerns
of local people, so as to provide dispersal habitats and corridor for
spill over population of wild animals from the designated core areas
of tiger reserves or from tiger breeding habitats within other protected
areas. It is also required to ensure that the forestry operations of
regular forest divisions and those adjoining the tiger reserves are
not incompatible with the needs of tiger conservation.
42. Under sub-section (4) of Section 38V, the State Government, while
preparing a TCP, is also required to ensure the agricultural, livelihood,
developmental and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing
forests or a tiger reserve. Explanation thereto provides that the ‘tiger
reserve’ shall consist of two areas. The first area shall be core or
critical tiger habitat areas of National Parks and sanctuaries; which,
on the basis of scientific and objective criteria, are required to be kept
as inviolate for the purposes of tiger conservation, without affecting
the rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other forest dwellers, and
notified as such by the State Government in consultation with an
Expert Committee constituted for the said purpose. The second area,
i.e., the buffer or peripheral area, shall consist of the area peripheral
228 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

to critical tiger habitat or core area, identified and established in
accordance with the provisions contained in Explanation (i). In such
area, a lesser degree of habitat protection is required to ensure the
integrity of the critical tiger habitat with adequate dispersal for tiger
species. The creation of the buffer zone is aimed at promoting co-
existence between wildlife and human activity with due recognition
of the livelihood, developmental, social and cultural rights of the
local people, wherein the limits of such areas are determined on
the basis of scientific and objective criteria in consultation with the
concerned Gram Sabha and an Expert Committee constituted for
the said purpose.
43. Sub-section (5) of Section 38V deals with resettlement etc. of the
Scheduled Tribes and, therefore, it may not be necessary for us to
go into the provisions of sub-section (5).
44. Section 38W of the WLP Act deals with alteration and de-notification
of tiger reserves. It provides that no alteration in the boundaries of
a tiger reserve shall be made except on a recommendation of the
Tiger Conservation Authority and the approval of the National Board
for Wild Life. Sub-Section (2) thereof prohibits the State Government
from de-notifying a tiger reserve, except in public interest with the
approval of the Tiger Conservation Authority and the National Board
for Wild Life.
45. Section 38XA of the WLP Act which was inserted by the Wild Life
(Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 (No. 18 of 2022) makes the
legislative intent amply clear. It provides that, the provisions contained
in the said Chapter shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of
the provisions relating to sanctuaries and National Parks (whether
included and declared, or are in the process of being so declared)
included in a tiger reserve under this Act.
46. It could thus be seen that, the entire emphasis of the WLP Act is on
the conservation, protection, and management of wildlife. Various
provisions contained in the WLP Act, discussed hereinabove,
emphasize on providing measures for the conservation, protection
and management of wildlife. The provisions contained in Chapter
IVA lay a specific emphasis on the protection of tigers and other
habitats in the tiger reserve. The provisions contained therein are
in addition to the provisions contained for sanctuaries and National
Parks.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 229

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

IV. GUIDELINES ISSUED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES
47. In light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it will also be necessary
to refer to certain guidelines issued by various authorities.
48. The NTCA published guidelines for preparation of TCP in 2007.
The said guidelines provide for what should be the approach for
preparation of TCP. It will be relevant to refer to clause 3.1 thereof,
which reads thus :
“3.1 Consolidating and strengthening of ‘source’
populations of tiger in tiger reserves and protected
areas
The management interventions would involve :
1. Protection, anti-poaching activities and networking
2. Strengthening of infrastructure within Tiger Reserves
3. Habitat improvement including water development
4. Rehabilitation package for traditional hunting tribes living
around tiger reserves
5. Staff development and capacity building
6. Delineating inviolate spaces for wildlife and relocation of
villagers from crucial habitats in Tiger Reserves within a
timeframe (five years) and settlement of rights
7. Safeguarding tiger habitats from ecologically unsustainable
development”
49. It will also be relevant to refer to clause 3.2 thereof, which reads thus :
“3.2 Managing ‘source-sink’ dynamics by restoring
habitat connectivity to facilitate dispersing tigers to
repopulate the core areas
The management interventions would involve :
1. Co-existence agenda in buffer/fringe areas (landscape
approach/sectoral integration) with ecologically sustainable
development programme for providing livelihood options
to local people, with a view to reduce their resource
dependency on the core. The strategy would involve
reciprocal commitments with the local community on a
230 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

quid-pro-quo basis to protect forests and wildlife, based
on village level, participatory planning and implementation
through ecodevelopment committees (EDC).
2. Addressing man-animal conflict issues (ensuring uniform,
timely compensation for human injuries and deaths due
to wild animals, livestock depredation by carnivores, crop
depredation by wild ungulates).
3. Mainstreaming wildlife concerns in the buffer landscape
by targeting the various production sectors in the area,
which directly or incidentally affect wildlife conservation,
through ‘Tiger Conservation Foundation’, as provided in
the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006.
4. Addressing tiger bearing forests and fostering corridor
conservation through restorative strategy in respective
working plans of forest divisions, involving local
communities, to arrest fragmentation of habitats.
5. Ensuring safeguards/retrofitting measures in the area in
the interest of wildlife conservation.”
50. The guidelines also deal with various production sectors in the
buffer zone which require mainstreaming of wildlife concerns in
these sectors like :
"(a) Forestry (D)
(b) Agriculture (D)
(c) Integrated Development (ecodevelopment, development through
District Administration) (D)
(d) Tourism (D)
(e) Fisheries (D)
(f) Tea/Coffee Estates (I)
(g) Road / Rail transport (D)
(h) Industry (D)
(i) Mining (I)
(j) Thermal power plants (I)
(k) Irrigation projects (D)
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 231

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

(l) Temple tourism (I)
(m) Communication projects (D)”
51. Clause 6 of the said guidelines deals with importance of a buffer
zone vis-à-vis the tiger land tenure dynamics, which reads thus :
“6. Importance of a buffer zone vis-à-vis the tiger land
tenure dynamics
6.1 Tiger is a territorial animal, which advertises its
presence in an area and maintains a territory. It is a
well known fact that partial overlaps of resident male
territories in an area do occur. However, the degree
of overlap increases lethal internecine combats.
Several female territories do occur in an overlapping
manner within the territory of a male tiger. The tiger
land tenure dynamics ensures presence of prime
adults in a habitat which act as source populations,
periodically replacing old males by young adults from
nearby forest areas (Plate 2).
6.2 The ongoing study and analysis of available research
data on tiger ecology indicate, that the minimum
population of tigresses in breeding age, which are
needed to maintain a viable population of 80-100 tigers
(in and around core areas) require an inviolate space
of 800 -1000 sq km (see Annexure I). Tiger being
an “umbrella species”, this will also ensure viable
populations of other wild animals (co-predators, prey)
and forest, thereby ensuring the ecological viability of
the entire area / habitat. Therefore, buffer areas with
forest connectivity are imperative for tiger dynamics,
since such areas foster sub adults, young adults,
transients and old members of the population. The
young adults periodically replace the resident ageing
males and females from the source population area.
6.3 The buffer area, absorbs the “shock” of poaching
pressure on populations of tiger and other wild
animals. In case of severe habitat depletion in buffer
areas, the source population would get targeted and
eventually decimate.
232 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Plate 2 : Tiger Land Tenure Dynamics. Minimum
population of tigers in breeding age needed for
maintaining a viable population (80-100 tigers),
which require an inviolate space of 800-1000 square
kilometers.”
52. Clause 8 of the said guidelines deals with the importance of the
corridors, which reads thus :
“8. Value of Corridors
8.1 Isolated populations of wild animals face the
risk of extinction owing to insularization. Habitat
fragmentation adversely affects wildlife due to
decreased opportunity available for wild animal
movement from different habitats. This in turn
prevents gene flow in the landscape. The equilibrium
theory of island biogeography predicts greater species
richness in large wildlife areas or in smaller areas
connected by habitat corridors owing to increased
movements of wild animals. Such connecting
habitats, apart from facilitating animal movements
also act as refuge for spill over populations from the
core areas. They may also act as smaller “source” by
facilitating breeding and movement of native wildlife
populations to colonize adjoining habitats. Natural
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 233

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

linear features like rivers or mountain ranges may
act as boundaries for wildlife populations. However,
disturbance of corridors on account of human
interventions (highways, canals, industries, roads,
railway tracks, transmission lines) is deleterious to
wildlife.”

Plate 3 : Tiger Land Tenure Dynamics
8.2 “Source” populations are those which produce a
surplus of animals which are potential colonizers.
On the other hand, “Sinks” are those populations in
which deaths exceed births, and their persistence
depends on regular influx of immigrants.
8.3 Patches of suitable habitats in the landscape may
support wildlife populations (local populations),
which may be separated from one another on
account of various disturbance factors. Collectively,
such patches of local populations are known as
“regional populations”. This general situation of sub
divided populations interacting with one another
in a landscape to supplement new genes through
movement, is known as a “meta population”. In the
context of tiger land tenure dynamics, the core-
buffer areas conform to the “island-mainland” or
“coresatellite” form of meta population model. The
core area of a tiger reserve provides a source of
colonizers for the surrounding local populations of
different sizes and varying degrees of isolation. The
234 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

core area may not readily experience extinction owing
to the protection inputs for maintaining its inviolate
nature. However, the surrounding isolated patches
in the buffer area may suffer from local extinction if
wildlife concerns are not mainstreamed in the area.
Therefore, a meta population management approach
is required for the buffer zone as well as corridors
to facilitate :
(a) Supplementing declining local tiger populations
(b) Facilitating re-colonization in habitat patches through
restorative management
(c) Providing opportunity to tiger for colonizing new
areas through patches of habitats (stepping stones)
between isolated populations (Plate 4).

Plate 4 : Meta population dynamics. Corridors become
crucial for maintaining viability of Population 2 as by
itself it does not have the habitat to sustain greater
than 20 breeding tigers.”
53. In 2012, the NTCA issued Guidelines for Normative Standards for
Tourisms Activities and for Project Tiger for tiger conservation in the
buffer and core areas of the tiger reserves which were notified vide
Gazette Notification dated 15th October 2012 (hereinafter referred
to as “the 2012 Guidelines”)
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 235

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

54. Clause 16.2 of the 2012 Guidelines deals with strengthening of
infrastructure within the tiger reserve, which reads thus :
“16.2. Strengthening of infrastructure within Tiger
Reserves (ongoing) (non recurring for new civil works
and recurring for maintenance).
The following activities, inter alia, would form part of
reinforcing the infrastructure of tiger reserves (including
support to new tiger reserves) :
(i) Civil Works (staff quarters, family hostels, office
improvement, patrolling camp, house keeping buildings,
museum, culverts).
(ii) Maintenance, creation and upgradation of road network.
(iii) Maintenance and creation of wireless tower.
(iv) Maintenance and creation of fire watch tower.
(v) Maintenance and creation of bridges, dams, anicuts.
(vi) Maintenance, creation of firelines and firebreaks.
(vii) Maintenance and creation of earthen ponds.
(viii) Procurement and maintenance of vehicles (Gypsy, Jeep,
Truck, Tractor etc.).
(ix) Habitat improvement works.
(x) Procurement of hardware, software/Geographical
Information System (GIS).
(xi) Procurement of compass, range finder, Global Positioning
System (GPS), camera traps.
(xii) Procurement of satellite imageries for management planning.
(xiii) Map digitization facility for management planning.
(xiv) Monitoring system for Tigers’ Intensive Protection and
Ecological Status (M-STrIPES) monitoring.
(xv) E-surveillance.”
55. Clause 16.21 of the 2012 Guidelines deals with establishment of
Tiger Safari, interpretation and awareness centres in buffer and
fringe areas, which reads thus :
236 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“16.21 Establishment of Tiger Safari, interpretation and
awareness centres under the existing component of
‘co-existence agenda in buffer and fringe areas’, and
management of such centres through the respective
Panchayati Raj Institutions (creation - Non-Recurring;
maintenance - Recurring).
The Tiger Safaris may be established in the buffer areas
of tiger reserves which experience immense tourist
influx in the core/critical tiger habitat for viewing tiger.
The interpretation and awareness centres would also be
supported in such buffer areas to foster awareness for
eliciting public support. The management of such centres
would be through the respective Panchayati Raj (PR)
institutions.”
56. In 2016, the NTCA notified the Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris
in Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves (hereinafter referred
to as “2016 Guidelines”). These guidelines provide for the basic
criteria, and procedure required to be followed in the buffer and
fringe areas of tiger reserves for dealing with the establishment,
management, and administration of the ‘Tiger Safaris’ after following
the due procedure prescribed under the law and the 2012 Guidelines.
Clause 8 thereof provides that, tourism activities in the tiger reserves
are regulated by the normative guidelines on tourism issued by the
NTCA as well as by the prescriptions on eco-tourism as contained in
the TCPs of the tiger reserves. It provides that the last three years’
average visitation will be taken into consideration while determining
the need for a tiger safari. It provides that, if the carrying capacity
is 100% utilized, then a proposal for establishing a tiger safari can
be placed before the NTCA.
57. Clause 9 of the 2016 guidelines is very important. It provides that
no tiger shall be obtained from the zoo exhibit. Wild tigers that are
from the same landscape as that of the area where the tiger safari
is established, falling under the categories of (a) injured tigers (after
suitable treatment); (b) conflict tigers; and (c) orphaned tiger cubs
which are unfit for re-wilding and release into the wild shall be
selected. It further provides that no visibly injured or incapacitated
tiger shall be put on the safari. It further provides that recovered/
treated animals shall be put on display only after assessment by the
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 237

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

NTCA. Further, no healthy wild tiger or any other animal shall be
sourced from the wild as per provisions of the National Zoo Policy.
58. Clause 10 of the 2016 guidelines further provides that the location of
the tiger safari shall be identified preferably in the buffer (not falling
in notified National Parks and/or Wildlife Sanctuary)/peripheral area
of the tiger reserve based on the recommendations of a committee
comprising of members from the NTCA, CZA, Forest Department
of State concerned, an experienced tiger biologist/scientist/
conservationist and a representative, nominated by the Chief Wildlife
Warden of the concerned State. It also provides that tiger dispersal
routes shall be avoided in all circumstances. The area of a Safari
Park should be as large as possible; however, the minimum area of
a tiger safari should be 40 hectares, extendable as per requirements.
The topography for the safari should be undulating and well- drained,
without steep slopes. The vegetation maintained in the Safari Park
should be indigenous. The density of flora should be regulated
according to needs, and to provide a naturalistic effect. It should
provide shelters and withdrawal areas for animals. It provides that
the entire safari area should be surrounded by a suitable peripheral
chain link fence. The said chain link fence should be of a minimum
height of 5 meters in case of large carnivores like tigers with a
suitable both way –overhang at the top or as prescribed by the CZA
from time to time. It also provides that a buffer zone (strip) of about
5 meters width be provided around the fenced area. It also provides
for the erection of a watch tower of about 5 meters in height. It also
provides for the sensitization of visitors at ‘Visitor Centres’. It provides
that visitors shall enter the park in eco-friendly vehicles which run
on solar and/or battery power only. There are various other details
with regard to layout of roads, hours of the day during which vehicles
should be permitted, the equipment to be provided, veterinary care,
education. It also provides for the frequency of vehicles entering the
Safari Park. It further restricts taking the vehicles near the animals
and to maintain a distance of at least 10 meters. It also provides for
waste disposal, monitoring, and supervision.
59. Clause 14 of the 2016 guidelines provides for management of the
tiger safari based on prescriptions of a Master Plan which shall be
formulated as per guidelines of the CZA and duly approved by the said
Authority. It further provides that care should be taken to harmonize
the Master Plan with prescriptions of the TCP of the area concerned.
238 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

60. The NTCA again in 2019 notified guidelines to establish tiger safaris
in buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves. Most of the guidelines
are similar to those contained in the 2016 guidelines. In some areas,
elaborate details have been provided. The only substantial distinction
is about clause 9, which reads thus :
“9. Selection of Animal : The selection of the animal shall
be done in conformity of section 38I of Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 after due approval of the Central Zoo Authority
(CZA).”
61. It will further be relevant to note that the NTCA has notified the
Standard Operating Procedure to deal with orphaned, abandoned
tiger cubs and old/injured tigers in wild (hereinafter referred to as
“SOP”). The said SOP provides detailed procedures as to what are
the causes and circumstances leading to orphaned/abandoned tiger
cubs and old/injured tigers in the wild. It provides a procedure for
establishing the identity of the tigresses/cub(s)/old/injured/sick tigers
by comparing camera trap photographs with the National Repository
of Camera Trap Photographs of Tigers. It provides for the collection
of recent cattle/livestock depredation or human injury/fatal encounter
data, if any, in the area. It further deals with how such cubs and
tigers are to be dealt with.
62. The said SOP provides that, rearing of the tiger cubs should be in the
in situ enclosure for wilding/re-wilding towards subsequent release in
the wild. It provides a detailed procedure as to how the in situ enclosure
should be constructed in order to avoid the ‘Pavlovian’ conditioning of
tiger cubs in the in situ enclosure and the release of natural prey animals
within the tiger enclosure with minimum sound. It also provides for
maintaining of a record of the kills made by the tiger cubs. It provides that
the tiger cubs should be reared in the in situ enclosure for a minimum
of two years, and each cub should have a successful kill record of
at least 50 prey animals. It provides that the tiger cubs which have a
successful kill record may be released in the wild in consultation with
the NTCA after radio collaring, to a suitable, productive habitat within
the same landscape, while keeping in mind the land tenure dynamics
of tigers or the presence of human settlements in the new area. The
SOP also deals with ‘Hard’ release of tiger cubs in the wild.
63. The SOP also provides for the rehabilitation of the sick/injured/
old tigers in zoos. A perusal of the SOP would reveal that only in
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 239

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

extreme situations, where an old/injured tiger may create a human-
tiger interface problem leading to livestock/human depredation; such
tigers should be rehabilitated in a recognized zoo.
64. The SOP also, in detail, has provisions with regard to the design of
cages/transportation protocol; design and related details of the in
situ enclosure; housekeeping details for the rearing of abandoned/
orphaned newborn tiger cubs; and safeguards for the field staff.
65. It is further relevant to note that, the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife, Union of
India has issued a Resolution dated 7th December 1988, thereby
providing for the National Forest Policy, 1988. Para 4.5 of the said
Policy deals with ‘Wildlife Conservation’, which reads thus :
“4.5 Wildlife Conservation
Forest Management should take special care of the needs
of wildlife conservation, and forest management plans
should include prescriptions for this purpose. It is specially
essential to provide for “corridors” linking the protected area
in order to maintain genetic continuity between artificially
separated sub-sections of migrant wildlife.”
66. It is further relevant to note that the National Wildlife Action Plan,
2017-2031 also emphasizes on the concept of protection of the
wildlife as a whole, beyond protected areas to protect the integrity
of the Tiger Reserve. The relevant portion of the Plan is reproduced
herein below :
“Landscape Level Approach for Wildlife Conservation
Overview and Objectives-
1. It is increasingly recognized that wildlife conservation
has to go beyond Protected Areas (PAs) to the
larger landscapes in which these are embedded.
A landscape is defined as ‘a large tract of land
constituted by a mosaic of interacting land uses
with people and the impacts of their activities as
the cornerstone of its management.’ Landscape
allows ecosystem level conservation actions at
the existing internal smaller nested spatial scales
of management/ administration such as PAs and
240 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

territorial forest divisions as well as larger units to
achieve conservation goals at the largest spatial
scale possible in practical terms.
2. Landscape level conservation of species must be
seen as maintaining or enhancing genetic exchanges
between metapopulations and significantly improving
the prospects of their long term persistence.
Therefore, the plans must address species loss in
the short-term and the reasons for such depletions
in the long run.
xxx xxx xxx
6. Further, conservation of wildlife can not be
seen isolated from the whole development of
the region or landscape. Local governance
systems, local land use patterns and land use
systems, ecosystem-interfaces and socio-
economic circumstances are mutually intertwined
at the landscape level. Therefore, a mosaic
approach to landscape planning needs to be
developed in partnership with other agencies
and stakeholders.”
[emphasis supplied]
67. It is thus amply clear that the National Wild Life Action Plan also
recognizes the necessity of wildlife conservation beyond the
protected areas. It states that the landscape allows ecosystem
level conservation actions at the existing internal smaller nested
spatial scales of management/administration such as protected
areas and territorial forest divisions as well as larger units to
achieve conservation goals at the largest spatial scale possible
in practical terms. It further states that the conservation of wildlife
cannot be seen to be isolated from the whole development of the
region or landscape. It states that the local governance systems,
local land use patterns and land use systems, ecosystem-interfaces
and socio-economic circumstances are mutually intertwined at the
landscape level. It emphasizes that a mosaic approach to landscape
planning needs to be developed in partnership with other agencies
and stakeholders.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 241

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

V. CONSIDERATION
68. This Court had an occasion to consider an issue with regard to
environmental justice in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v. Union of India and others2, wherein this Court held thus :
“17. Environmental justice could be achieved only if
we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric
to ecocentric. Many of our principles like sustainable
development, polluter-pays principle, intergenerational
equity have their roots in anthropocentric principles.
Anthropocentrism is always human interest focussed and
that non-human has only instrumental value to humans.
In other words, humans take precedence and human
responsibilities to non-human based benefits to humans.
Ecocentrism is nature-centred where humans are part of
nature and non-humans have intrinsic value. In other words,
human interest does not take automatic precedence and
humans have obligations to non-humans independently of
human interest. Ecocentrism is therefore life-centred,
nature-centred where nature includes both humans and
non-humans. The National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2012
and the Centrally Sponsored Integrated Development of
Wildlife Habitats Scheme, 2009 are centred on the principle
of ecocentrism.”
[emphasis supplied]
69. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that, to achieve
environmental justice, the approach of anthropocentrism i.e. human
interest focused and that non-human has only instrumental value to
humans will have to be avoided. It has been held that ecocentrism i.e.
nature centered where humans are a part of nature and non-humans
have intrinsic value will have to be adopted. It has been held that
human interest does not take automatic precedence and humans
have obligations to non-humans independently of human interest. It
has been held that the National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2012 and
the Centrally Sponsored Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats
Scheme, 2009 are centred on the principle of ecocentrism.

2 [2012] 3 SCR 460 : (2012) 3 SCC 277 : 2012 INSC 81
242 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

70. This Court again in the case of Centre for Environmental Law,
World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India and others3, following
the earlier judgments, observed thus :
“44. The scope of the Centrally-sponsored scheme was
examined in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union
of India [(2012) 3 SCC 277] (Wild Buffalo case) and
this Court directed implementation of that scheme in
the State of Chhattisgarh. The Centrally-sponsored
scheme, as already indicated, specifically refers to the
Asiatic lions as a critically endangered species and
highlighted the necessity for a recovery programme
to ensure the long-term conservation of lions. NWAP,
2002-2016 and the Centrally-sponsored scheme, 2009
relating to integrated development of wildlife habitats
are schemes which have statutory status and as
held in Lafarge case [Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd.
v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338] and have to be
implemented in their letter and spirit. While giving
effect to the various provisions of the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, the Centrally-sponsored scheme, 2009, the NWAP,
2002-2016 our approach should be ecocentric and not
anthropocentric.”
[emphasis supplied]
71. It could thus be seen that, this Court held that the National Wildlife
Action Plan (NWAP), 2002-2016, and the Centrally-sponsored
scheme, 2009 related to the integrated development of wildlife
habitats are schemes that have a statutory status, and will have to
be implemented in letter and spirit.
72. It can further be seen that, this Court has emphasized on the
importance of sustainable development, i.e., balancing the rights of
the citizens and the concern for the environmental and ecological
issues.
73. In this respect, it will be appropriate to refer to Articles 48-A and
51-A(g) of the Constitution, which read thus :

3 [2013] 6 SCR 757 : (2013) 8 SCC 234 : 2013 INSC 254
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 243

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

“48-A. Protection and improvement of environment
and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.—The State
shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment
and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
***
51-A. Fundamental duties.—It shall be the duty of every
citizen of India—
***
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion
for living creatures;”
74. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India and others4,
this Court observed thus :
“10. The traditional concept that development and ecology
are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable.
“Sustainable Development” is the answer. In the international
sphere, “Sustainable Development” as a concept came to
be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of
1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite
shape by the World Commission on Environment and
Development in its report called “Our Common Future”.
The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister
of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland and as such the report
is popularly known as “Brundtland Report”. In 1991 the
World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment
Programme and Worldwide Fund for Nature, jointly came
out with a document called “Caring for the Earth” which is
a strategy for sustainable living. Finally, came the Earth
Summit held in June 1992 at Rio which saw the largest
gathering of world leaders ever in history—deliberating and
chalking out a blueprint for the survival of the planet. Among
the tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was the
signing of two conventions, one on biological diversity
and another on climate change. These conventions were

4 [1996] Supp. 5 SCR 241 : (1996) 5 SCC 647 : 1996 INSC 952
244 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

signed by 153 nations. The delegates also approved
by consensus three non-binding documents, namely, a
Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles
on environmental policy and development initiatives and
Agenda 21, a programme of action into the next century
in areas like poverty, population and pollution. During
the two decades from Stockholm to Rio “Sustainable
Development” has come to be accepted as a viable concept
to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life
while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting
ecosystems. “Sustainable Development” as defined by the
Brundtland Report means “Development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of
the future generations to meet their own needs”. We have
no hesitation in holding that “Sustainable Development” as
a balancing concept between ecology and development
has been accepted as a part of the customary international
law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by
the international law jurists.
***
16. The constitutional and statutory provisions protect a
person’s right to fresh air, clean water and pollution-free
environment, but the source of the right is the inalienable
common law right of clean environment. It would be useful
to quote a paragraph from Blackstone’s commentaries
on the Laws of England (Commentaries on the Laws of
England of Sir William Blackstone) Vol. III, Fourth Edn.
published in 1876. Chapter XIII, “Of Nuisance” depicts the
law on the subject in the following words :
‘Also, if a person keeps his hogs, or other noisome animals,
or allows filth to accumulate on his premises, so near the
house of another, that the stench incommodes him and
makes the air unwholesome, this is an injurious nuisance,
as it tends to deprive him of the use and benefit of his house.
A like injury is, if one’s neighbour sets up and exercises
any offensive trade; as a tanner’s, a tallow-chandler’s, or
the like; for though these are lawful and necessary trades,
yet they should be exercised in remote places; for the rule
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 245

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

is, “sic utere tuo, ut alienum non leadas”; this therefore
is an actionable nuisance. And on a similar principle a
constant ringing of bells in one’s immediate neighbourhood
may be a nuisance.
… With regard to other corporeal hereditaments; it
is a nuisance to stop or divert water that used to run
to another’s meadow or mill; to corrupt or poison a
watercourse, by erecting a dye-house or a lime-pit, for the
use of trade, in the upper part of the stream; to pollute a
pond, from which another is entitled to water his cattle;
to obstruct a drain; or in short to do any act in common
property, that in its consequences must necessarily tend
to the prejudice of one’s neighbour. So closely does the
law of England enforce that excellent rule of gospel-
morality, of “doing to others, as we would they should
do unto ourselves”.’ ””
75. Further in the case of Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of
A.P. and others5, this Court observed thus :
“84. The world has reached a level of growth in the 21st
century as never before envisaged. While the crisis of
economic growth is still on, the key question which often
arises and the courts are asked to adjudicate upon is
whether economic growth can supersede the concern
for environmental protection and whether sustainable
development which can be achieved only by way of
protecting the environment and conserving the natural
resources for the benefit of humanity and future generations
could be ignored in the garb of economic growth or
compelling human necessity. The growth and development
process are terms without any content, without an inkling as
to the substance of their end results. This inevitably leads
us to the conception of growth and development, which
sustains from one generation to the next in order to secure
“our common future”. In pursuit of development, focus
has to be on sustainability of development and policies

5 [2006] 2 SCR 419 : (2006) 3 SCC 549 : 2006 INSC 101
246 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

towards that end have to be earnestly formulated and
sincerely observed. As Prof. Weiss puts it, “conservation,
however, always takes a back seat in times of economic
stress”. It is now an accepted social principle that all
human beings have a fundamental right to a healthy
environment, commensurate with their well-being, coupled
with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are
conserved and preserved in such a way that present as
well as the future generations are aware of them equally.”
76. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and
others6, this Court observed thus :
“41. With rapid industrialisation taking place, there is an
increasing threat to the maintenance of the ecological
balance. The general public is becoming aware of the
need to protect environment. Even though, laws have
been passed for the protection of environment, the
enforcement of the same has been tardy, to say the
least. With the governmental authorities not showing
any concern with the enforcement of the said Acts, and
with the development taking place for personal gains
at the expense of environment and with disregard of
the mandatory provisions of law, some public-spirited
persons have been initiating public interest litigations.
The legal position relating to the exercise of jurisdiction
by the courts for preventing environmental degradation
and thereby, seeking to protect the fundamental rights of
the citizens, is now well settled by various decisions of
this Court. The primary effort of the court, while dealing
with the environmental-related issues, is to see that the
enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any
other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement
of the laws. The courts, in a way, act as the guardian of
the people’s fundamental rights but in regard to many
technical matters, the courts may not be fully equipped.
Perforce, it has to rely on outside agencies for reports and
recommendations whereupon orders have been passed

6 [1996] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 507 : (1996) 5 SCC 281 : 1996 INSC 543
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 247

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

from time to time. Even though, it is not the function of the
court to see the day-to-day enforcement of the law, that
being the function of the Executive, but because of the
non-functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts
as of necessity have had to pass orders directing the
enforcement agencies to implement the law.”
77. Emphasizing on the concern for environmental and ecological
protection, the Courts have recognised the importance of sustainable
development. Development which can be achieved only by way of
protecting the environment and conserving the natural resources
for the benefit of humanity and future generations. This Court holds
that, it is now an accepted social principle that all human beings
have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate
with their well-being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring
that resources are conserved and preserved in such a way that
the present as well as future generations will be aware of them
equally. This Court has further held that, the primary effort of the
court while dealing with the environment-related issues, is to see
that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any other
authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws. It
has been held that the courts, in a way, act as the guardian of
the people’s fundamental rights. This Court has observed that it
is not the function of the court to see the day-to-day enforcement
of the law; that being the function of the Executive, but because
of the non-functioning of the enforcement agencies, the courts out
of necessity have had to pass orders directing the enforcement
agencies to implement the law. In the recent judgments of this Court
in the cases of Resident’s Welfare Association and another v.
Union Territory of Chandigarh and others7, State of Himachal
Pradesh and others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and another8
and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Uday Education and
Welfare Trust and others9, to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.)
was a party, this Court has also emphasized on the principle of
sustainable development.

7 [2023] 1 SCR 601 : (2023) 8 SCC 643 : 2023 INSC 22
8 [2024] 1 SCR 973 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 36 : 2024 INSC 30
9 [2022] 19 SCR 781 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469 : 2022 INSC 465
248 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(a) Consideration as to whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on
the same footing or not.
78. In this background, we will have to consider the question as to whether
the ‘zoo’ as defined under Section 2(39) and dealt with under Chapter
IVA of the WLP Act and the ‘Tiger Safaris’ as conceptualized by the
NTCA would stand on a same footing or not.
79. We have already reproduced the definition of ‘zoo’ as defined under
Section 2(39) of the WLP Act. The definition of ‘zoo’ itself would
show that it is meant to be an establishment, whether stationary or
mobile, where captive animals are kept for exhibiting to the public
or ex-situ conservation and include a circus and off-exhibit facilities
such as rescue centres and conservation breeding centres. However,
it does not include the establishment of a licensed dealer in captive
animals. It could thus be seen that though a ‘zoo’ as contemplated
under Chapter IVA of the WLP Act also deals with conservation, it
emphasizes on ex situ conservation.
80. Proviso to Section 33(a) of the WLP Act specifically prohibits
any construction of tourist lodges, including Government lodges
for commercial purposes, hotels, zoos and safari parks inside a
sanctuary except with the prior approval of the National Board. It
could thus be seen that, insofar as the area which is covered under
a sanctuary is concerned, there will be no difficulty to hold that a
safari cannot be constructed within the said area unless there is a
prior approval of the National Board. However, the question that
falls for consideration in the present case is, as to whether a ‘Tiger
Safari’ would be permissible in the buffer zone or not.
81. For the first time, a ‘safari’ was defined in the ‘Guidelines for Safari
Parks which are Working either as Zoos or as Extension to Zoos,
1996’. It reads thus :
“Safaries are specialized zoos where the captive animals
are housed in any large naturalistic enclosures to and
the visitors are allowed to enter the enclosure to view
the animals in a mechanized vehicle or a pre-determined
route from close quarters.”
82. It could thus be seen from the title of the said Guidelines itself that
the same would be applicable only insofar as safari parks which are
working either as zoos or as an extension to zoos.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 249

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

83. Undisputedly, the ‘Tiger Safaris’ which are conceptualized by the
NTCA are not for the parks which are working either as zoos or as
an extension to zoos.
84. As already discussed herein above, the entire thrust of the WLP Act is
on the conservation, protection, and management of wildlife. Noticing
the importance of tigers as a centre of the eco-system, Chapter IVB
of the WLP Act, which deals with NTCA, was inserted by the Wild
Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2006 (No. 39 of 2006) with effect
from 4th September 2006. A perusal of Chapter IVB would reveal
that it emphasizes on the conservation and protection of tigers and
the management of the ‘Tiger Reserves’. A very important role has
been entrusted to the NTCA which is to be chaired by the Minister
in charge of the Ministry of Environment and Forests insofar as the
conservation and protection of tigers and the management of ‘Tiger
Reserves’ is concerned.
85. As already discussed herein above, clause (c) of Section 38-O of
the WLP Act requires the NTCA to lay down normative standards
for tourism activities and guidelines for project tiger from time to
time for tiger conservation in the buffer and core area of tiger
reserves and ensure their due compliance. Clause (g) thereof
requires the NTCA to ensure that the tiger reserves and areas
linking one protected area or tiger reserve with another protected
area or tiger reserve are not diverted for ecologically unsustainable
uses, except in public interest and that too, with the approval of
the National Board for Wild Life and on the advice of the Tiger
Conservation Authority.
86. It is to be noted that after the State Government, on the recommendation
of the NTCA, notifies an area as a ‘Tiger Reserve’, the restriction as
provided under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub-
sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 27, Sections 30, 32 and clauses
(b) and (c) of Section 33 of this Act shall, as far as may be, apply in
relation to a ‘Tiger Reserve’ as they apply in relation to a sanctuary.
87. Section 38XA of the WLP Act specifically provides that the provisions
contained in the said Chapter shall be in addition to, and not in
derogation of, the provisions relating to sanctuaries and National
Parks. As such, it could be seen that the legislature has put ‘Tiger
Reserve’ on a higher pedestal than the sanctuaries and the National
Parks.
250 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

88. Sub-section (4) of Section 38V of the WLP Act requires the State
Government, while preparing a TCP, to ensure the agricultural,
livelihood, developmental and other interests of the people living in
tiger bearing forests or a tiger reserve. Explanation thereto divides the
‘Tiger Reserve’ into two areas, i.e., (i) core or critical tiger habitat areas
of National Parks and sanctuaries, which are required to be kept as
inviolate for the purposes of tiger conservation, without affecting the
rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other forest dwellers; and (ii)
buffer or peripheral area, where a lesser degree of habitat protection is
required to ensure the integrity of the critical tiger habitat. While doing
so, the State Government is required to ensure adequate dispersal
for the tiger species, which aims at promoting co-existence between
wildlife and human activity with due recognition of the livelihood,
developmental, social and cultural rights of the local people, wherein
the limits of such areas are determined based on the scientific and
objective criteria in consultation with the concerned Gram Sabha and
an Expert Committee constituted for the purpose are to be provided.
89. It is thus clear that, even in buffer or peripheral areas, though a lesser
degree of habitat protection than the core area is to be provided,
however, the provisions are required to be made to ensure the
integrity of the critical tiger habitat with adequate dispersal for tiger
species. An effort has to be made to promote co-existence between
wildlife and human activity with due recognition of the livelihood,
developmental, social and cultural rights.
90. It is further to be noted that the National Forest Policy, 1988 also
emphasizes the necessity to provide for “corridors” linking the
protected areas to maintain genetic continuity between artificially
separated sub-sections of migrant wildlife. Even the National Wildlife
Action Plan 2017-31 emphasizes on the same. As held by this Court
in the case of Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-
India (supra), this Policy has a statutory flavor.
91. As held by this Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v. Union of India and others (supra), the approach has to be
ecocentric and not anthropocentric. The approach has to be nature-
centred where humans are a part of nature and non-humans have
intrinsic value.
92. We will now have to examine as to how the concept of ‘Tiger Safaris’
came to be introduced.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 251

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

93. We have already reproduced the relevant part of the Guidelines for
Preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan, 2007. The said Guidelines
show how important is the buffer zone vis-à-vis the tiger land
tenure dynamics. Based on the available research data, it has
been found that the minimum population of tigresses in breeding
age, which is needed to maintain a viable population of 80-100
tigers (in and around core areas) requires an inviolate space of
800 -1000 sq. km. It also states that the tiger being an “umbrella
species”, such an area would also ensure viable populations of
other wild animals (co-predators, prey) and forest, thereby ensuring
the ecological viability of the entire area/habitat. It can also be
seen that the buffer areas with forest connectivity are imperative
for tiger dynamics since such areas foster sub-adults, young
adults, transients, and old members of the population. The young
adults periodically replace the resident aging males and females
from the source population area. It also states that the buffer area
absorbs the “shock” of poaching pressure on populations of tigers
and other wild animals.
94. It is for the first time, in “the 2012 Guidelines” issued by the NTCA
on 15th October 2012, that the concept of establishment of the ‘Tiger
Safari’ could be found, which has already been reproduced herein
above. The said Guidelines provided that the ‘Tiger Safaris’ may be
established in the buffer areas of tiger reserves which experience
immense tourist influx in the core/critical tiger habitat for viewing tigers.
It also provided for the establishment of interpretation and awareness
centres in such buffer areas to foster awareness for eliciting public
support. It provided that the management of such centres would be
through the respective Panchayati Raj (PR) institutions.
95. Thereafter in 2016, the NTCA issued guidelines to establish ‘Tiger
Safaris’ in the buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves. These
guidelines provided for the basic criteria, and procedure required
in the buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves for dealing with the
establishment, management, and administration of ‘Tiger Safaris’
after following the due procedure prescribed under the law and the
2012 guidelines as also the CZA guidelines for the establishment
of new zoos under section 38H(1A) of the WLP Act. Clause 8 of
the said Guidelines provides that, if the carrying capacity is 100%
utilized, then a proposal for establishing a ‘Tiger Safari’ can be placed
before the NTCA.
252 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

96. Clause 9 of the 2016 guidelines is very important. It specifically
provides that no tiger shall be obtained from a zoo exhibit. It further
provides that wild tigers which are from the same landscape as that
of the area where the tiger safari is established, would fall under the
categories of (a) injured tigers (after suitable treatment); (b) conflict
tigers; and (c) orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for re-wilding and
release into the wild should be selected. It further provides that no
visibly injured or incapacitated tiger shall be put in the safari. It further
provides that recovered/treated animals shall be put on display only
after assessment by the NTCA. It further provides that no healthy
wild tiger or any other animal shall be sourced from the wild as per
the provisions of the National Zoo Policy.
97. Clause 10 of the 2016 guidelines further provides that the location
of the tiger safari shall be identified preferably in the buffer (not
falling in notified National Parks and/or Wildlife Sanctuary)/peripheral
area of the tiger reserve on the basis of the recommendations of
a committee comprising of members from the NTCA, CZA, Forest
Department of State concerned, an experienced tiger biologist/
scientist/conservationist and a representative, nominated by the Chief
Wildlife Warden of the concerned State. It further provides that tiger
dispersal routes shall be avoided in all circumstances.
98. However, the NTCA has issued fresh guidelines in November 2019.
The 2019 Guidelines are similar to the 2016 Guidelines, except clause
9, which provides that the selection of the animal shall be done in
conformity with Section 38I of the WLP Act after due approval of
the CZA.
99. It could thus be seen that under the 2016 Guidelines, the concept
of ‘Tiger Safaris’ was mainly for rehabilitation of the injured tigers
(after suitable treatment), conflict tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs
which are unfit for re-wilding and release into the wild. The final
authority insofar as selection of the animals is concerned, vested
with the NTCA. It could also be seen that the said 2016 Guidelines
are also consistent with the SOP of the NTCA to deal with orphaned,
abandoned tiger cubs and old/injured tigers in wild. The concept was
changed in the 2019 Guidelines i.e. animals from zoo will be put in
Safari. It provided that the selection of the animals shall be done in
conformity with Section 38I of the WLP Act. The final authority of
the selection of animals is vested with the CZA.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 253

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

100. We prima facie find no infirmity in the guidelines issued by the
NTCA, i.e., the 2012 Guidelines and the 2016 Guidelines for
establishing the ‘Tiger Safaris’ in the buffer and fringe areas of the
‘Tiger Reserve’. In our view, the said Guidelines emphasizes on
the rehabilitation of injured tigers (after suitable treatment), conflict
tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for re-wilding and
release into the wild. However, the 2019 Guidelines, departing
from the aforesaid purpose, provide for sourcing of animals from
zoos in the Tiger Safaris. In our view, this would be totally contrary
to the purpose of the Tiger Conservation. Similarly, the vesting of
final authority in the CZA and not in the NTCA, in our view, is not
in tune with the emphasis on tiger conservation as provided under
Chapter IVB of the WLP Act. We are also of the view that since
undertaking of establishment of such a ‘Tiger Safari’ would be
basically for the ‘in-situ’ conservation and protection of the tiger, it
is the NTCA that shall have the final authority. No doubt that the
CZA can be taken on board so that it can render its expertise in
the management of such ‘Safaris’.
101. We also find that, a reading of the provisions contained in the proviso
to Section 33(a) and the provisions contained in the Explanation (ii)
of sub-section 4 of Section 38V of the WLP Act would reveal that,
although it will not be permissible to establish a ‘Tiger Safari’ in a
core or critical tiger habitat area without obtaining the prior approval
of the National Board, such an activity would be permissible in the
buffer or peripheral area.
102. As already discussed herein above, while preparing a TCP, the State
Government is required to ensure that the agricultural, livelihood,
developmental, and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing
forests or a tiger reserve are taken care of.
103. Undisputedly, it may not be out of place to mention that the
establishment of such ‘safaris’ in the buffer zone would generate
employment for the local people and promote co-existence between
wildlife and human activity. However, we are of the considered
view that such a ‘safari’ can be established only for the purposes
specified in clause 9 of the 2016 Guidelines and not as per the
2019 Guidelines.
(b) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau is
legal or not.
254 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

104. We will now have to consider whether the establishment of the ‘Tiger
Safari’ at Pakhrau is legal or not.
105. TCP in respect of the Corbett Tiger Reserve Core Zone for the
period 2012-13 to 2021-2022 was submitted to the NTCA on 27th
January 2015. The said TCP has been approved by the NTCA on
4th March 2015.
106. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant portion of clause 13.1.2 of
the said TCP, which reads thus :
“There is also need to develop a Rescue Centre cum
Tiger Safari in the buffer area of CTR so as to provide an
easy option for rescue and rehabilitation of injured and/or
infirm or problem tigers and to provide opportunities for
visitors to see tigers up close in a near natural controlled
environment.”
107. It could thus be seen that, the TCP also provided for developing a
Rescue Centre-cum-Tiger Safari to provide an easy option for the
rescue and rehabilitation of the injured and/or infirm or problem tigers
and also to provide an opportunity for visitors to see tigers up close
and in a near-natural controlled environment.
108. It will be relevant to refer to clause J of the said TCP, which reads
thus :
“J. Exploring the possibility of a Tiger Safari :
Though Corbett Tiger Reserve is known for its tigers and
it attracts lots of tourists, many of them could not see
tiger and they return with heavy hearts. It is a fact that
maximum tourists are only interested with the sighting
of tigers. Although the park administration is trying its
best to educate and aware tourists to enjoy the breath
taking landscape with wildlife such as elephants, deer
and crocodiles, casual tourists always hunt for sighting
of a tiger. At this point the recent guideline enacted by
NTCA for setting up of a ‘Tiger Safari’ in the buffer area
to divert casual tourists from the tourism zone which will
ultimately benefit the habitat from unnecessary pressure
from growing tourists. The tiger safari will generate
huge revenue which will enrich the ‘Tiger Conservation
Foundation of CTR’ and ultimately the fringe villagers. A
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 255

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

detail proposal will be prepared as per the guidelines of
NTCA and CZA for funding by NTCA. There is a strong
possibility of developing such a safari in Karnashram area
of Lansdowne Forest Division.”
109. The TCP takes into consideration the concept of diversion of casual
tourists from the tourism zone to the ‘Tiger Safari’ in the buffer
zone. It also states that this will ultimately benefit the habitat from
unnecessary pressure from the growing tourists. It states that the
‘Tiger Safari’ will generate huge revenue which will enrich the ‘Tiger
Conservation Foundation of CTR’ and ultimately the fringe villages.
It also proposed a site for a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Karnashram area of
Lansdowne Forest Division.
110. A perusal of the materials placed on record would reveal that the
NTCA vide its order dated 5th June 2015, had granted an in-principal
approval for establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ in Pakhrau. The CZA,
vide order dated 12th February 2019, conveyed its approval on the
conditions stipulated therein. The ‘Tiger Safari’ project, therefore,
was approved by the CZA. Since at the relevant time, ‘Tiger Safari’
was considered as a ‘part forest and part non-forestry’ activity, an
in-principal approval was granted by the Government of India under
the Forest Conservation Act on 30th October 2020 for the Forest
Clearance of 15% of the area. The Stage-I clearance was granted
on 30th October 2020 and the Stage II clearance was granted on
10th September 2021.
111. It could be seen that, the location of the ‘Tiger Safari’ has not been
identified as per clause 10 of the 2016 Guidelines which requires
recommendations of the Committee comprising of the members
from (i) NTCA, (ii) CZA, (iii) Forest Department of concerned State,
(iv) an experienced tiger biologist/scientist/conservationist, and (v)
a representative, nominated by the Chief Wildlife Warden of the
concerned State.
112. From the record, it does not appear that such a Committee was
constituted for the purpose of determining the location of the ‘Tiger
Safari’ at Pakhrau. However, since there are approvals from the
NTCA and the CZA and since the proposal for the establishment
of ‘Tiger Safari’ was submitted by the Forest Department of the
State, and since the Chief Wildlife Warden was also associated
with identification of the location, we find that, though technically
256 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

there will be non-compliance with the requirement of clause 10 of
the 2016 Guidelines; in fact, since most of the authorities mentioned
therein are ad idem, we do not wish to interfere with the decision to
establish the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau.
113. We also place on record that Shri Anup Malik, IFS, PCCF (HoFF),
Uttarakhand, and Dr. Samir Sinha, IFS, PCCF (Wildlife) & Chief
Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand, who were present in the Court during
the hearing, have informed the Court that 80% of the work of the
‘Tiger Safari’ is complete. It is further informed that there are many
tigers, who after their treatment are waiting in the rescue centre for
being rehabilitated in the ‘Safari’. It is also informed that the location
of the ‘Tiger Safari’ is at the edge of the buffer zone, abutting the
farmlands of the villagers. It is also informed that the topography
of Karnashram area of Lansdowne Forest Division was not found
suitable for the ‘Tiger Safari’ due to its terrain and the site at Pakhrau
was found to be suitable. In any case, the concerned authorities, who
have expertise in the matter, have approved the said site at Pakhrau.
114. In these peculiar facts, we are inclined to approve the establishment
of the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau. However, we find that when the TCP
of 2015 itself provided for the establishment of a Rescue Centre-
cum-Tiger Safari at a nearby place, there appears to be no logic
for establishing a rescue centre at another place. We therefore find
that it will be appropriate that the State of Uttarakhand is directed
to also relocate the rescue centre nearby the ‘Tiger Safari’. At the
same time, it will also be necessary to issue directions that, while
undertaking construction of these ‘Tiger Safaris’, the provisions of
the 2016 Guidelines are scrupulously followed. We also propose to
issue further directions in this regard, in the operative part of the
judgment. The directions which would be issued by us would also be
applicable to the existing safaris including the Pakhrau Tiger Safari.
(c) Illegal construction and felling of trees
115. The next question that requires consideration is with regard to the
illegal construction carried out in the Corbett Tiger Reserve and the
illegal felling of trees for the said purpose.
116. The Corbett National Park is one of the oldest parks in the country.
It was declared a National Park by the United Provinces National
Park Act, 1935. After the launch of ‘Project Tiger’ and the amendment
to the WLP Act in the year 2006, which inserted Chapter IVB, a
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 257

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

Tiger Reserve admeasuring 1,288.31 sq. km. was notified by the
Government of Uttarakhand by notification dated 26 th February
2010, issued under Section 38V(1). Out of this 1,288.31 sq. km.,
821.99 sq. km. has been declared as the core critical Tiger Habitat.
Further, out of this 821.99 sq. km., 520.82 sq. km. forms part of the
Corbett National Park, and 301.17 sq. km. of the Sonanadi Wildlife
Sanctuary. The remaining reserved forest to the extent of 466.32
sq. km is a buffer area constituting 306.90 sq. km. in the Kalagarh
Forest Division and 159.4 sq. km. in the Ram Nagar Forest Division.
117. The forests of the Corbett Tiger Reserve form an essential link corridor
between Corbett and Rajaji National Park through the Rawasana –
Sonanadi Corridor in the Lansdowne Forest Division.
118. The importance of the Corbett National Park has been captured in
the “Status of Tigers, Co-predators & Prey in India” in the following
words :
“Corbett Tiger Reserve is the largest source population
for tigers in Shivalik-Gangetic landscape and responsible
for the remarkable recovery of tiger population in this
landscape. The corridors connecting Corbett with the
surrounding forest divisions and protected areas are crucial
for the long-term survival of this metapopulation.
xxx xxx xxx
With a high ungulate biomass in the park Corbett Tiger
Reserve maintains a high tiger density acting as a source
of dispersing tigers to neighbouring protected areas
(Lansdowne, Terai West, Amangarh and Ramnagar Forest
Division) and is therefore of great importance for tiger
and wildlife conservation in this landscape. Corbett Tiger
Reserve has the largest tiger population in any single
Protected Area in the world.”
119. The Fifth Cycle of the ‘Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Tiger
Reserves in India’ was released in the year 2023 based on the survey
conducted in the year 2022. Though this evaluation gives a good
rating to the Corbett Tiger Reserve, yet certain weaknesses have
been pointed out. The Indian State of Forest Report 2021 (ISFR 21)
suggests that the forest cover in the Corbett Tiger Reserve in 2011
was VDF 330.88 sq. km.; MDF 825 sq. km.; and OF 91.61 sq.km.
258 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and that it has undergone changes, as found in the year 2021. The
report also says that there has been a loss of 22 sq. km. of forest
cover in the Tiger Reserve. It further noticed that the human-tiger
conflict in the landscape is also increasing, and the loss of tree cover
has resulted in loss of habitat and increased conflict with humans.
It is pointed out that, as of now no Eco Sensitive Zone (“ESZ” for
short) has been notified for the Corbett Tigre Reserve. It suggested
that in the absence of such notification, the activities in the 10 km.
deemed ESZ must be regulated.
120. It further points out that the building materials were found stored for
remodeling private resorts along the Ramnagar-Ranikhet highway. It
recommended that such activities must be regulated. It also points
out that the Ramnagar-Ranikhet highway is persistently acting as
a barrier for many species, including the elephant. It suggested
that these roads have to be made eco-friendly according to the
guidelines.
121. Report No. 3 of 2023 in Application No.1558 of 2021 in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.202 of 1995 submitted by the CEC has annexed various
reports containing findings of the Committees constituted under the
orders of the High Courts. The CEC has considered the following :
(i) Findings of the Committee constituted by the NTCA pursuant to
the order dated 23rd August 2021, passed by the High Court of
Delhi in Writ Petition No.8729 of 2021 filed by the applicant-Mr.
Gaurav Kumar Bansal;
(ii) Report dated 9th November 2021 filed jointly by PCCF (General),
PCCF (Wildlife) and the Director of the Corbett National Park
before the High Court of Uttarakhand pursuant to the order of
the High Court dated 27th October 2021 in Writ Petition No.178
of 2021;
(iii) Site Inspection Report of the Regional Office, MoEF&CC,
Dehradun in respect of the illegal felling of trees and illegal
construction of buildings and waterbodies in the Corbett Tiger
Reserve Landscape, Uttarakhand.
(iv) Findings of the Five Member Kapil Joshi Committee constituted
by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF) vide letter
No.948/P.O. dated 27th December 2021 and 1002/P.O. dated
12th January 2022.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 259

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

(v) Report of FSI dated 20th October 2022 on the felling of trees
in the name of establishment of the Pakhrau Tiger Safari,
Uttarakhand.
122. After considering the aforesaid reports/findings, the CEC has come
to a finding that various irregularities have been committed in the
areas outside the Tiger Safari as well as in the Pakhrau Tiger Safari.
They have been listed as under :
"A. IRREGULARITIES OUTSIDE THE TIGER SAFARI
a) improvement to Kandi Road over a length of 1.2
KM by way of raising the level of the road and
construction of culverts without the approval/
sanction of the competent authority and without
any provision in the budget.
b) construction of four buildings each with 4 rooms
at Forest Rest House (FRH) complex, Pakhrau.
c) construction of four buildings, each with 4 rooms
at Forest Rest House Complex, Morghatti.
d) construction of a water body each near Pakhrau
FRH and Morghatti FRH after clearing the tree
growth
e) construction of four buildings outside the
Kugadda Forest CAMP in Palean Range,
Kalagarh Forest Division falling with in the
Corbett Tiger Reserve. These four buildings had
identical building plans similar to those seen in
Morghatti and Pakhrau, FRH Complex.
f) construction by DFO, Kalagarh of Saneh Forest
Rest House falling in Lansdowne Forest Division
pursuant to the directions of CCF, Garhwal vide
letter dated 15.09.2021.
g) laying of underground 11 KV electrical cables
between Saneh and Pakhrau.
The noted works at (a) to (g) above were being carried
out without requisite administrative and financial
approvals of the competent authority. The works
260 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

were being executed solely under the orders of the
DFO, Kalagarh and DFO Kalagarh is not competent
to sanction these works.
B. IRREGULARITIES IN PAKHRAU TIGER SAFARI
a) Illegal felling of estimated 6053 trees at the
proposed Tiger Safari construction sites in place
of 163 permitted to be cut in the FC clearance
granted by MoEF&CC
b) Commencement of construction work of Pakhrau
Tiger Safari even before getting stage II
clearance under FC Act 1980 and final approval
of the Layout Plans by the Central Zoo Authority
c) Concrete buildings are being constructed instead
of using bamboo which has been approved by
MoEF&CC.
d) Additional civil structures are planned and being
built without approval of the revised plan and
accordingly the estimate has escalated from
Rs.26.81 crores to Rs.102.11 crores”
123. The aforesaid list of irregularities would reveal that a vast number of
illegal construction activities have been carried out. Such constructions
cannot be completed overnight. Though an action has been taken in
respect of certain officers of the Forest Department, we are of the
prima facie view that many other persons must have been involved
in the commission of the said irregularities. However, since the CBI
is conducting the investigation as per the orders passed by the High
Court, we do not propose to make any comments thereto.
124. It has been categorically stated in the report that CEC was informed
about all the civil structures being constructed in respect of works at
“A” except one building at Kuggada which has been demolished. It
has been stated that one building which has not been demolished
has been used by the Forest Staff as their camping place because of
lack of alternative accommodation. We are also informed during the
hearing that, except for the works executed at the Pakhrau Tiger Safari
site, the contractors who executed the works without the approval
of competent authorities have not been made any payments and
that the contractors have also not made any claims in this regard.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 261

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

125. The CEC during the site visit was shown the locations where the
unauthorized buildings once stood but these buildings were not there
at the time of the site visit of CEC as they had been demolished on
the orders of the Director, ‘Project Tiger’.
126. The CEC has further noticed that the DFO, Kalagarh who executed
the work illegally had committed similar irregularities during his
earlier postings. It is also noticed that the PCCF & HoFF and the
DIG Police, Vigilance Department had written in this regard to the
Government requesting not to post the said officer in any sensitive
post. The Range Officer posted in Pakhrau range had earlier worked
with Kishan Chand, DFO, Kalagarh while he was the DFO in the
Rajaji Tiger Reserve. Despite the fact that both these officers were
accused of the irregularities that took place in the Rajaji Tiger
Reserve, they were again posted together in the Kalagarh Forest
Division.
127. The CEC also noticed that the DFO, Kalagarh was transferred from
the Kalagarh Forest Division only after the site visit of the CEC
even though the report submitted by the NTCA had found that the
illegalities/irregularities were committed by him. It is also noticed
that even after it came to the notice of the higher authorities that
the DFO, Kalagarh had issued work orders without any authority in
respect of the works which have been listed above, yet for unknown
reasons, he was not named as an accused in the forest offences.
128. The CEC has formed an opinion that the cavalier attitude of the
Government of Uttarakhand indicated that the officer was having tacit
backing of his bosses in the execution of the unauthorized works
worth crores of rupees at the cost of the environment and the wildlife
in a prestigious and world-renowned Tiger Reserve.
129. The CEC further found that, though the works at the Forest Rest
House Campuses were supposed to be for the accommodation of
the forest staff, they do not appear to be so. They appear to be
meant for providing accommodation consisting of 16 rooms at four
locations (64 rooms) for tourists. As per the CEC, it was clear that
this was done for the promotion of tourism.
130. The report of the CEC further found that the proposal for the felling
of trees at the site of Pakhrau Tiger Safari submitted to MoEF&CC
under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 relates to the felling of
only 163 trees out of 3,620 trees that have been enumerated within
262 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the 16 Hectares out of the 106.16 Hectares that has been approved
for the establishment of the Tiger Safari. It also refers to the report
of the FSI dated 20th October 2022, which has estimated the total
number of trees felled at the Pakhrau Tiger Safari site to be 2,651.
The report further states that approximately additional 534 trees have
been felled for the construction of tourist accommodation facilities
and water bodies outside the proposed Pakhrau Tiger Safari.
131. No doubt that the report refers to the objection of the Uttarakhand
Forest Department to the estimation of the FSI, which is also
reiterated before us by Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel during
his arguments.
132. The report of the CEC further highlights that taking into consideration
the sequence of events that happened, it was of the opinion that it
was the then Hon’ble Forest Minister who was the main architect of
the entire matter. In a nutshell, the reasons thereof are as under :
(i) That, the State Vigilance Department vide letter dated 19th
September 2019 and the PCCF and HoFF vide letters dated
18th September 2019 and 21st September 2019 had requested
the State Government not to post Mr. Kishan Chand at any
sensitive post, he was still given a posting in a sensitive post.
(ii) That, though there was no proposal from the Forest Department
and no recommendation from the Civil Service Board (CSB)
to post Mr. Kishan Chand at the Kalagarh Forest Division,
ignoring the recommendation of the PCCF & HoFF and the
State Vigilance Department, the then Hon’ble Forest Minister
inserted the name of Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO at serial No. 11
in the proposal relating to transfer and postings. This insertion
was made on 26th April 2021 before the concerned file was
submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Minister for approval of the
posting proposal.
(iii) Though the Secretary (Forests) vide notings dated 27th October
2021, after considering the seriousness of the irregularities
reported by the NTCA, recommended placing Mr. Kishan Chand
under suspension, the then Hon’ble Forest Minister has not only
overruled the recommendation of the Secretary (Forests) for
suspension but also justified the proposed posting to Lansdowne
Division stating that Mr. Kishan Chand only executed works
which had been started by his predecessors.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 263

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

(iv) The then Hon’ble Forest Minister justified the construction of
new buildings on the ground that they were being constructed
as per the approvals granted by the Corbett Tiger Reserve
Foundation. Overruling the proposal of the Secretary (Forest)
for suspension, the then Hon’ble Forest Minister justified the
actions of the DFO Mr. Kishan Chand, and recommended
that the officer be transferred from the post of DFO Kalagarh
Forest Division to the post of DFO Lansdowne Forest Division,
Lansdowne.
(v) Subsequently, the posting of Mr. Kishan Chand was reviewed
and revised on 24th November 2021 by the Hon’ble Chief
Minister and the officer was posted to the Office of the HoFF
on administrative grounds. This change in proposal relating
to the posting of Mr. Kishan Chand was put up to the Chief
Minister directly as was noticed by the CEC from the copies
of the notings on the file.
(vi) Ignoring the recommendation of the authorities to place Mr.
Kishan Chand under suspension, the then Hon’ble Forest
Minister once again attempted to post the officer to Lansdowne
Territorial Forest Division by inserting his name at serial no.
16 in the transfer and posting proposals. This was done again
without any proposal from the Forest Department and without
the recommendation of CSB.
(vii) That, it was only after the then Forest Minister demitted office
that Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO was finally put under suspension.
(d) ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine
133. It appears that the then Hon’ble Forest Minister and Mr. Kishan
Chand had completely forgotten about the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine.
134. The importance of the ‘Public Trust’ doctrine in environmental and
ecological matters has been explained by this Court in the case of
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others10. This Court has elaborately
referred to various articles and the judgments on the issue to come
to a conclusion that the ‘public trust’ doctrine is a part of the law of
the land in the following paragraphs :

10 [1996] Supp. 10 SCR 12 : (1997) 1 SCC 388 : 1996 INSC 1482
264 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“23. The notion that the public has a right to expect certain
lands and natural areas to retain their natural characteristic
is finding its way into the law of the land. The need to
protect the environment and ecology has been summed
up by David B. Hunter (University of Michigan) in an article
titled An ecological perspective on property : A call for
judicial protection of the public’s interest in environmentally
critical resources published in Harvard Environmental Law
Review, Vol. 12 1988, p. 311 is in the following words :
“Another major ecological tenet is that the world is
finite. The earth can support only so many people
and only so much human activity before limits are
reached. This lesson was driven home by the oil
crisis of the 1970s as well as by the pesticide scare
of the 1960s. The current deterioration of the ozone
layer is another vivid example of the complex,
unpredictable and potentially catastrophic effects
posed by our disregard of the environmental limits
to economic growth. The absolute finiteness of the
environment, when coupled with human dependency
on the environment, leads to the unquestionable
result that human activities will at some point be
constrained.
‘Human activity finds in the natural world its
external limits. In short, the environment imposes
constraints on our freedom; these constraints
are not the product of value choices but of
the scientific imperative of the environment’s
limitations. Reliance on improving technology
can delay temporarily, but not forever, the
inevitable constraints. There is a limit to the
capacity of the environment to service …
growth, both in providing raw materials and
in assimilating by-product wastes due to
consumption. The largesse of technology can
only postpone or disguise the inevitable.’
Professor Barbara Ward has written of this ecological
imperative in particularly vivid language :
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 265

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

‘We can forget moral imperatives. But today the
morals of respect and care and modesty come to
us in a form we cannot evade. We cannot cheat
on DNA. We cannot get round photosynthesis. We
cannot say I am not going to give a damn about
phytoplankton. All these tiny mechanisms provide
the preconditions of our planetary life. To say we
do not care is to say in the most literal sense that
“we choose death”.’
There is a commonly-recognized link between laws
and social values, but to ecologists a balance between
laws and values is not alone sufficient to ensure
a stable relationship between humans and their
environment. Laws and values must also contend with
the constraints imposed by the outside environment.
Unfortunately, current legal doctrine rarely accounts
for such constraints, and thus environmental stability
is threatened.
Historically, we have changed the environment to fit
our conceptions of property. We have fenced, plowed
and paved. The environment has proven malleable
and to a large extent still is. But there is a limit to
this malleability, and certain types of ecologically
important resources — for example, wetlands and
riparian forests — can no longer be destroyed without
enormous long-term effects on environmental and
therefore social stability. To ecologists, the need for
preserving sensitive resources does not reflect value
choices but rather is the necessary result of objective
observations of the laws of nature.
In sum, ecologists view the environmental sciences
as providing us with certain laws of nature. These
laws, just like our own laws, restrict our freedom of
conduct and choice. Unlike our laws, the laws of
nature cannot be changed by legislative fiat; they are
imposed on us by the natural world. An understanding
of the laws of nature must therefore inform all of our
social institutions.”
266 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

24. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory
known as the “Doctrine of the Public Trust”. It was founded
on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers,
seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in
trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general
public. Our contemporary concern about “the environment”
bear a very close conceptual relationship to this legal
doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources were
either owned by no one (res nullious) or by every one in
common (res communious). Under the English common
law, however, the Sovereign could own these resources
but the ownership was limited in nature, the Crown could
not grant these properties to private owners if the effect
was to interfere with the public interests in navigation or
fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses were
deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of
the public. Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of
Michigan — proponent of the Modern Public Trust Doctrine
— in an erudite article “Public Trust Doctrine in Natural
Resource Law : Effective Judicial Intervention”, Michigan
Law Review, Vol. 68, Part 1 p. 473, has given the historical
background of the Public Trust Doctrine as under :
“The source of modern public trust law is found in a
concept that received much attention in Roman and
English law — the nature of property rights in rivers,
the sea, and the seashore. That history has been
given considerable attention in the legal literature,
need not be repeated in detail here. But two points
should be emphasized. First, certain interests, such as
navigation and fishing, were sought to be preserved
for the benefit of the public; accordingly, property
used for those purposes was distinguished from
general public property which the sovereign could
routinely grant to private owners. Second, while it
was understood that in certain common properties
— such as the seashore, highways, and running
water — ‘perpetual use was dedicated to the public’,
it has never been clear whether the public had an
enforceable right to prevent infringement of those
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 267

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

interests. Although the State apparently did protect
public uses, no evidence is available that public
rights could be legally asserted against a recalcitrant
government.”
25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle
that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests
have such a great importance to the people as a whole
that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject
of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of
nature, they should be made freely available to everyone
irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon
the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment
of the general public rather than to permit their use for
private ownership or commercial purposes. According
to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the
following restrictions on governmental authority :
“Three types of restrictions on governmental authority
are often thought to be imposed by the public trust :
first, the property subject to the trust must not only
be used for a public purpose, but it must be held
available for use by the general public; second,
the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash
equivalent; and third the property must be maintained
for particular types of uses.”
26. The American law on the subject is primarily based
on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in
Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois
[146 US 387 : 36 L Ed 1018 (1892)]. In the year 1869 the
Illinois Legislature made a substantial grant of submerged
lands — a mile strip along the shores of Lake Michigan
extending one mile out from the shoreline — to the Illinois
Central Railroad. In 1873, the Legislature changed its
mind and repealed the 1869 grant. The State of Illinois
sued to quit title. The Court while accepting the stand of
the State of Illinois held that the title of the State in the
land in dispute was a title different in character from that
which the State held in lands intended for sale. It was
different from the title which the United States held in
268 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

public lands which were open to pre-emption and sale.
It was a title held in trust — for the people of the State
that they may enjoy the navigation of the water, carry on
commerce over them and have liberty of fishing therein
free from obstruction or interference of private parties.
The abdication of the general control of the State over
lands in dispute was not consistent with the exercise of
the trust which required the Government of the State to
preserve such waters for the use of the public. According
to Professor Sax the Court in Illinois Central [146 US
387 : 36 L Ed 1018 (1892)] “articulated a principle that
has become the central substantive thought in public
trust litigation. When a State holds a resource which is
available for the free use of the general public, a court will
look with considerable skepticism upon any governmental
conduct which is calculated either to relocate that resource
to more restricted uses or to subject public uses to the
self-interest of private parties”.
27. In Gould v. Greylock Reservation Commission
[350 Mass 410 (1966)] the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts took the first major step in developing
the doctrine applicable to changes in the use of lands
dedicated to the public interest. In 1886 a group of citizens
interested in preserving Mount Greylock as an unspoiled
natural forest, promoted the creation of an association for
the purpose of laying out a public park on it. The State
ultimately acquired about 9000 acres, and the legislature
enacted a statute creating the Greylock Reservation
Commission. In the year 1953, the legislature enacted
a statute creating an Authority to construct and operate
on Mount Greylock an Aerial Tramway and certain other
facilities and it authorised the Commission to lease to the
Authority any portion of the Mount Greylock Reservation.
Before the project commenced, five citizens brought an
action against both the Greylock Reservation Commission
and the Tramway Authority. The plaintiffs brought the suit
as beneficiaries of the public trust. The Court held both
the lease and the management agreement invalid on the
ground that they were in excess of the statutory grant of
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 269

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

the authority. The crucial passage in the judgment of the
Court is as under :
“The profit-sharing feature and some aspects of
the project itself strongly suggest a commercial
enterprise. In addition to the absence of any clear
or express statutory authorization of as broad a
delegation of responsibility by the Authority as is
given by the management agreement, we find no
express grant to the Authority or power to permit
use of public lands and of the Authority’s borrowed
funds for what seems, in part at least, a commercial
venture for private profit.”
Professor Sax’s comments on the above-quoted paragraph
from Gould decision are as under :
“It hardly seems surprising, then, that the court
questioned why a State should subordinate a
public park, serving a useful purpose as relatively
undeveloped land, to the demands of private investors
for building such a commercial facility. The court, faced
with such a situation, could hardly have been expected
to have treated the case as if it involved nothing but
formal legal issues concerning the State’s authority
to change the use of a certain tract of land…. Gould,
like Illinois Central, was concerned with the most overt
sort of imposition on the public interest : commercial
interests had obtained advantages which infringed
directly on public uses and promoted private profits.
But the Massachusetts court has also confronted
a more pervasive, if more subtle, problem — that
concerning projects which clearly have some public
justification. Such cases arise when, for example, a
highway department seeks to take a piece of parkland
or to fill a wetland.”
28. In Sacco v. Development of Public Works [532
Mass 670], the Massachusetts Court restrained the
Department of Public Works from filling a great pond
as part of its plan to relocate part of State Highway.
The Department purported to act under the legislative
270 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

authority. The court found the statutory power inadequate
and held as under :
“the improvement of public lands contemplated by
this section does not include the widening of a State
highway. It seems rather that the improvement of
public lands which the legislature provided for … is
to preserve such lands so that they may be enjoyed
by the people for recreational purposes.”
29. In Robbins v. Deptt. of Public Works [244 NE 2d
577], the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
restrained the Public Works Department from acquiring
Fowl Meadows, “wetlands of considerable natural beauty
… often used for nature study and recreation” for highway
use.
30. Professor Sax in the article (Michigan Law Review)
refers to Priewev v. Wisconsin State Land and Improvement
Co. [93 Wis 534 (1896)], Crawford County Lever and
Drainage Distt. No. 1 [182 Wis 404], City of Milwaukee v.
State [193 Wis 423], State v. Public Service Commission
[275 Wis 112] and opines that “the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin has probably made a more conscientious
effort to rise above rhetoric and to work out a reasonable
meaning for the public trust doctrine than have the courts
of any other State”.
31. Professor Sax stated the scope of the public trust
doctrine in the following words :
“If any of the analysis in this Article makes sense,
it is clear that the judicial techniques developed
in public trust cases need not be limited either to
these few conventional interests or to questions of
disposition of public properties. Public trust problems
are found whenever governmental regulation comes
into question, and they occur in a wide range of
situations in which diffused public interests need
protection against tightly organized groups with clear
and immediate goals. Thus, it seems that the delicate
mixture of procedural and substantive protections
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 271

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

which the courts have applied in conventional public
trust cases would be equally applicable and equally
appropriate in controversies involving air pollution,
the dissemination of pesticides, the location of rights
of way for utilities, and strip mining of wetland filling
on private lands in a State where governmental
permits are required.”
32. We may at this stage refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court of California in National Audubon Society
v. Superior Court of Alpine County [33 Cal 3d 419]. The
case is popularly known as “the Mono Lake case”. Mono
Lake is the second largest lake in California. The lake is
saline. It contains no fish but supports a large population
of brine shrimp which feed vast numbers of nesting and
migrating birds. Islands in the lake protect a large breeding
colony of California gulls, and the lake itself serves as
a haven on the migration route for thousands of birds.
Towers and spires of tura (sic) on the north and south
shores are matters of geological interest and a tourist
attraction. In 1940, the Division of Water Resources
granted the Department of Water and Power of the City of
Los Angeles a permit to appropriate virtually the entire flow
of 4 of the 5 streams flowing into the lake. As a result of
these diversions, the level of the lake dropped, the surface
area diminished, the gulls were abandoning the lake and
the scenic beauty and the ecological values of Mono Lake
were imperilled. The plaintiffs environmentalist — using
the public trust doctrine — filed a law suit against Los
Angeles Water Diversions. The case eventually came to
the California Supreme Court, on a Federal Trial Judge’s
request for clarification of the State’s public trust doctrine.
The Court explained the concept of public trust doctrine
in the following words :
“‘By the law of nature these things are common
to mankind — the air, running water, the sea and
consequently the shores of the sea.’ (Institutes of
Justinian 2.1.1) From this origin in Roman law, the
English common law evolved the concept of the
public trust, under which the sovereign owns ‘all of
272 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

its navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath
them as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of
the people.’ ”
The Court explained the purpose of the public trust
as under :
“The objective of the public trust has evolved in
tandem with the changing public perception of the
values and uses of waterways. As we observed
in Marks v. Whitney [6 Cal 3d 251], ‘[p]ublic trust
easements (were) traditionally defined in terms of
navigation, commerce and fisheries. They have been
held to include the right to fish, hunt, bathe, swim, to
use for boating and general recreation purposes the
navigable waters of the State, and to use the bottom
of the navigable waters for anchoring, standing, or
other purposes. We went on, however, to hold that
the traditional triad of uses — navigation, commerce
and fishing — did not limit the public interest in the
trust res. In language of special importance to the
present setting, we stated that ‘[t]he public uses to
which tidelands are subject are sufficiently flexible to
encompass changing public needs. In administering
the trust the State is not burdened with an outmoded
classification favouring one mode of utilization over
another. There is a growing public recognition that
one of the important public uses of the tidelands — a
use encompassed within the tidelands trust — is the
preservation of those lands in their natural state, so
that they may serve as ecological units for scientific
study, as open space, and as environments which
provide food and habitat for birds and marine life,
and which favourably affect the scenery and climate
of the area.’
Mono Lake is a navigable waterway. It supports a
small local industry which harvests brine shrimp for
sale as fish food, which endeavour probably qualifies
the lake as a ‘fishery’ under the traditional public
trust cases. The principal values plaintiffs seek to
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 273

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

protect, however, are recreational and ecological
— the scenic views of the lake and its shore, the
purity of the air, and the use of the lake for nesting
and feeding by birds. Under Marks v. Whitney [6 Cal
3d 251], it is clear that protection of these values is
among the purposes of the public trust.”
The Court summed up the powers of the State as trustee
in the following words :
“Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation
of State power to use public property for public
purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State
to protect the people’s common heritage of streams,
lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that
right of protection only in rare cases when the
abandonment of that right is consistent with the
purposes of the trust….”
The Supreme Court of California, inter alia, reached the
following conclusion :
“The State has an affirmative duty to take the public
trust into account in the planning and allocation of
water resources, and to protect public trust uses
whenever feasible. Just as the history of this State
shows that appropriation may be necessary for efficient
use of water despite unavoidable harm to public trust
values, it demonstrates that an appropriative water
rights system administered without consideration
of the public trust may cause unnecessary and
unjustified harm to trust interests. (See Johnson,
14 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 233, 256-57/; Robie, Some
Reflections on Environmental Considerations in
Water Rights Administration, 2 Ecology L.Q. 695,
710-711 (1972); Comment, 33 Hastings L.J. 653,
654.) As a matter of practical necessity, the State may
have to approve appropriations despite foreseeable
harm to public trust uses. In so doing, however,
the State must bear in mind its duty as trustee to
consider the effect of the taking on the public trust
(see United Plainsmen v. N.D. State Water Cons.
274 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Comm’n [247 NW 2d 457 (ND 1976)] at pp. 462-463,
and to preserve, so far as consistent with the public
interest, the uses protected by the trust.”
The Court finally came to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs could rely on the public trust doctrine in seeking
reconsideration of the allocation of the waters of the
Mono basin.
33. It is no doubt correct that the public trust doctrine
under the English common law extended only to certain
traditional uses such as navigation, commerce and fishing.
But the American Courts in recent cases have expanded
the concept of the public trust doctrine. The observations
of the Supreme Court of California in Mono Lake case [33
Cal 3d 419] clearly show the judicial concern in protecting
all ecologically important lands, for example fresh water,
wetlands or riparian forests. The observations of the Court
in Mono Lake case [33 Cal 3d 419] to the effect that the
protection of ecological values is among the purposes of
public trust, may give rise to an argument that the ecology
and the environment protection is a relevant factor to
determine which lands, waters or airs are protected by
the public trust doctrine. The Courts in United States
are finally beginning to adopt this reasoning and are
expanding the public trust to encompass new types of
lands and waters. In Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi
[108 SCt 791 (1988)] the United States Supreme Court
upheld Mississippi›s extension of public trust doctrine to
lands underlying non-navigable tidal areas. The majority
judgment adopted ecological concepts to determine which
lands can be considered tide lands. Phillips Petroleum
case [108 SCt 791 (1988)] assumes importance because
the Supreme Court expanded the public trust doctrine to
identify the tide lands not on commercial considerations
but on ecological concepts. We see no reason why the
public trust doctrine should not be expanded to include
all ecosystems operating in our natural resources.
34. Our legal system — based on English common
law — includes the public trust doctrine as part of its
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 275

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

jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural
resources which are by nature meant for public use
and enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the
sea-shore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically
fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty
to protect the natural resources. These resources meant
for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.
35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this
case illustrate the classic struggle between those members
of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests,
parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those
charged with administrative responsibilities who, under
the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly
complex society, find it necessary to encroach to some
extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to
change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case
is for the legislature and not the courts. If there is a law
made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts
can serve as an instrument of determining legislative intent
in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the
Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the
executive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot
abdicate the natural resources and convert them into
private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic
use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the
environment and the ecosystems of our country cannot
be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any
other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith,
for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon
the said resources.”
135. This Court in unequivocal terms has held that the executive
acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the
natural resources and convert them into private ownership, or for
commercial use. The aesthetic use and the pristine glory of the
natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of our
country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial
or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good faith,
for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the
said resources.
276 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

136. The law with regard to the importance of the ‘public trust’ doctrine
in ecological/environmental matters has further been evolved and
expanded by this Court in subsequent judgments. In the case of
Association for Environment Protection v. State of Kerala and
others11, this Court has referred to some of the judgments which
followed the law laid down in the case of Kamal Nath (supra),
which are as under :
“6. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [(1999)
6 SCC 464], the Court applied the public trust doctrine
for upholding the order of the Allahabad High Court which
had quashed the decision of Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika
permitting appellant M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. to construct
an underground shopping complex in Jhandewala Park,
Aminabad Market, Lucknow, and directed demolition of
the construction made on the park land. The High Court
had noted that Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika had entered
into an agreement with the appellant for construction
of shopping complex and given it full freedom to lease
out the shops and also to sign agreement on its behalf
and held that this was impermissible. On appeal by the
builders, this Court held that the terms of agreement
were unreasonable, unfair and atrocious. The Court then
invoked the public trust doctrine and held that being a
trustee of the park on behalf of the public, the Nagar
Mahapalika could not have transferred the same to the
private builder and thereby deprived the residents of the
area of the quality of life to which they were entitled under
the Constitution and municipal laws.
7. In Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. [(2006) 3 SCC
549], this Court again invoked the public trust doctrine
in a matter involving the challenge to the systematic
destruction of percolation, irrigation and drinking water
tanks in Tirupati Town, referred to some judicial precedents
including M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [M.C. Mehta v. Kamal
Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388], M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. [(1999) 6
SCC 464], National Audubon Society [National Audubon

11 [2013] 7 SCR 352 : (2013) 7 SCC 226 : 2013 INSC 413
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 277

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

Society v. Superior Court, 658 P 2d 709 : 33 Cal 3d 419
(1983)] and observed : (Intellectuals Forum case [(2006)
3 SCC 549], SCC p. 575, para 76)
“76. … This is an articulation of the doctrine from the
angle of the affirmative duties of the State with regard
to public trust. Formulated from a negatory angle,
the doctrine does not exactly prohibit the alienation
of the property held as a public trust. However, when
the State holds a resource that is freely available for
the use of the public, it provides for a high degree of
judicial scrutiny on any action of the Government, no
matter how consistent with the existing legislations,
that attempts to restrict such free use. To properly
scrutinise such actions of the Government, the courts
must make a distinction between the Government›s
general obligation to act for the public benefit, and
the special, more demanding obligation which it may
have as a trustee of certain public resources….”
(emphasis in original)
8. In Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins
[(2009) 3 SCC 571 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 877], this Court
was called upon to consider whether the appellant was
entitled to block the passage to the beach by erecting a
fence in the garb of protecting its property. After noticing
the judgments to which reference has been made
hereinabove, the Court held : (SCC pp. 614-15 & 619,
paras 53-55 & 65)
“53. The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the
Government to protect the resources for the
enjoyment of the general public rather than to
permit their use for private ownership or commercial
purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on
the right of the State to transfer public properties to
private party if such transfer affects public interest,
mandates affirmative State action for effective
management of natural resources and empowers the
citizens to question ineffective management thereof.
278 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

54. The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it
imposes limits and obligations upon government
agencies and their administrators on behalf of all
the people and especially future generations. For
example, renewable and non-renewable resources,
associated uses, ecological values or objects in
which the public has a special interest (i.e. public
lands, waters, etc.) are held subject to the duty of the
State not to impair such resources, uses or values,
even if private interests are involved. The same
obligations apply to managers of forests, monuments,
parks, the public domain and other public assets.
Professor Joseph L. Sax in his classic article, ‘The
Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law :
Effective Judicial Intervention’ (1970), indicates that
the public trust doctrine, of all concepts known to
law, constitutes the best practical and philosophical
premise and legal tool for protecting public rights and
for protecting and managing resources, ecological
values or objects held in trust.
55. The public trust doctrine is a tool for exerting long-
established public rights over short-term public rights
and private gain. Today every person exercising his or
her right to use the air, water, or land and associated
natural ecosystems has the obligation to secure for
the rest of us the right to live or otherwise use that
same resource or property for the long-term and
enjoyment by future generations. To say it another
way, a landowner or lessee and a water right holder
has an obligation to use such resources in a manner
as not to impair or diminish the people›s rights and the
people›s long-term interest in that property or resource,
including downslope lands, waters and resources.
***
65. We reiterate that natural resources including
forests, water bodies, rivers, seashores, etc. are
held by the State as a trustee on behalf of the
people and especially the future generations. These
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 279

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

constitute common properties and people are entitled
to uninterrupted use thereof. The State cannot
transfer public trust properties to a private party, if
such a transfer interferes with the right of the public
and the court can invoke the public trust doctrine
and take affirmative action for protecting the right
of people to have access to light, air and water and
also for protecting rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests
and associated natural ecosystems.”
137. The importance of the doctrine of ‘public trust’ has further been
emphasized in the case of Tata Housing Development Company
Limited v. Aalok Jagga and others12 to which one of us (B.R.
Gavai, J.) was a party.
138. In the present case, it is clear beyond doubt that the then Forest
Minister and Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO considered them to be the
law unto themselves. They have, in blatant disregard of the law
and for commercial purposes, indulged in the illicit felling of trees
on a mass-scale to construct buildings on the pretext of promotion
of tourism. This is a classic case that shows how the politicians
and the bureaucrats have thrown the public trust doctrine in the
dustbin. Though Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO was found to have been
involved in serious irregularities at his earlier postings, and even
though the Authorities had recommended not to post the said officer
at any sensitive post, the then Hon’ble Forest Minister inserted his
name in the proposal relating to transfer and postings at a sensitive
post. Not only that, even after the NTCA found Mr. Kishan Chand,
DFO involved in serious irregularities, and the Secretary (Forests)
recommended placing him under suspension, the then Hon’ble
Forest Minister has not only overruled the recommendation of the
Secretary (Forest) for suspension but also justified his proposed
posting to the Lansdowne Division. It was only after the then Hon’ble
Forest Minister demitted his office, that Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO
could be put under suspension. This is a case that shows how a
nexus between a Politician and a Forest Officer has resulted in
causing heavy damage to the environment for some political and
commercial gain. Even the recommendation of the Senior Officers

12 [2019] 13 SCR 577 : (2020) 15 SCC 784 : 2019 INSC 1203
280 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of the Forest Department, the Vigilance Department, and the Police
Department which objected to his posting at a sensitive post have
been totally ignored. We are amazed at the audacity of the then
Hon’ble Forest Minister and Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO in giving a
total go-bye to the statutory provisions. However, since the matter
is pending investigation by the CBI, we do not propose to comment
any further on the matter.
(e) Concern of the CEC
139. The CEC in its report has also elaborately dealt with the past and
present policy of MoEF&CC in granting the Forest Clearance (FC)
and the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life (SC,
NBWL) clearances to set up zoos and safaris as forestry and non-
forestry activities. It is stated that from the perusal of the minutes
of the meeting of the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) held on 17th
February 2021, it would show that, in order to grant clearances under
the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 (“FC Act” for short), zoos were
treated as forestry activity till 2007. However, from 2017 onwards,
it was treated as a non-forestry activity. Thereafter, only 15% of the
total area required for parking and cafeteria, etc. for the setting up
of zoos/safaris was treated as a non-forestry activity. However, the
State is required to get an approval from the MoEF&CC under the
FC Act for the entire area required for the setting up of zoos and
safaris. The Net Present Value (NPV) is being collected only in
respect of 15% of the total area. The CEC therefore observed that
there was a lack of clarity in policy regarding the setting up of zoos
and safaris inside the forest boundary in such a sensitive matter.
140. The CEC has also highlighted various clauses in the NTCA
Guidelines. It has referred to inconsistencies between the 2016
Guidelines and the 2019 Guidelines. We do not want to elaborately
discuss the said issue since we have already referred to the same
in the earlier paragraphs.
141. The CEC has also expressed its concern about the issue that the
location of Tiger Safaris within Tiger Reserve with tigers sourced
from zoos is bound to endanger the population of wild tigers in the
Tiger Reserves.
142. The CEC has further observed that, the Tiger Safaris are not site-
specific activities as confirmed by the MoEF&CC. It also expressed
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 281

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

its opinion that the Tiger Safaris do not have to be necessarily
located within the notified Tiger Reserves, be it buffer or fringe
areas of the Tiger Reserves. It has been stated in the report that
at times the density of the tiger population is higher in the buffer
area as compared to the core area. The concern expressed is that,
by permitting the “zoos bred captive animals” in the buffer or fringe
areas, the possibility of tigers being exposed to pests and diseases
is enhanced. The CEC has also expressed that even the visitors
to the Tiger Safari can be carriers of diseases and pests. It has
recommended that the Tiger Safaris, not being site-specific, are to
be discouraged within the forest areas.
143. The CEC has further expressed that there is a great risk to free-
ranging animals from zoos/Safaris which have been set up close
to the wildlife-rich protected areas because of epidemiological
reasons. It states that zoonosis, especially of infectious diseases, is
commonly found in zoo/safari animals, including the tigers. It states
that, hundreds of pathogens and many different transmission modes
are involved and many factors influence the epidemiology of the
various such zoonosis. It further states that the risk of such zoonotic
disease transmission drastically increases in any setting where wild
animals are confined in close proximity to humans, including the
public display facilities like zoos and safaris.
144. The report refers to some of the studies in various zoos/Safari Parks,
including Hyderabad Zoo, Jaipur Zoo, Etawah Safari Park, etc.
145. The CEC elaborately refers to various mortalities that occurred in
various zoos in the recent past. The CEC report also refers to the
stand of the NTCA about the in-principle approvals that have been
granted by them for 5 Tiger Safaris in and around the Tiger Reserves
of India. The report states that the NTCA highlighted the following
main advantages/disadvantages in setting up zoos and safaris within
the forest area/protected area/Tiger Reserve :
“Advantages
i. Will help to reduce the pressure from core/critical
tiger habitat area
ii. Will facilitate promotion of conservation education
and livelihood generation
282 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Disadvantages
i. Its an intensive resource use establishment
ii. Clearance/modification of forest area will have to be
resorted to in certain cases.”
146. The CEC also refers to the stand of the CZA with regard to locating
the Tiger Safaris inside the Tiger Reserves. The report states thus :
“55. A. The Central Zoo Authority have supported the
establishment of Tiger Safari inside the Tiger Reserve
stating that :
i. there is need for development of off-display facilities
under fairly undisturbed conditions alongwith
availability of adequate and optimal land and which
may be challenging. Under the given circumstances,
forest land could offer optimal conditions to establish
such facilities;
ii. standards/norms for recognition of Elephant
Rehabilitation/Rescue Centres (ERC) under Section
42 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 recommends
that ERCS should be located, preferably near the
forest areas with access to water body/streams
(F.No.2-5/2006-PE (Vol.II) dated 29.10.2017;
iii. as per provision 2.1.4 of National Zoo Policy, 1998,’….
zoos shall continue to function as rescue centres for
orphaned wild animals, subject to the availability of
appropriate housing and upkeep infrastructure…’.
In consonance with this, Rescue Centres are an
important component of all recognized zoos in the
country. This will therefore aid in the mitigation of
conflict in a particular region (e.g. to ensure that
rescued animals do not have to be transported long-
distances/have a better chance at rehabilitation); and
iv. Wildlife Tourism is a thriving sector in India, and
with over 8 crore visitors annually, zoos are in the
forefront of this sector and significantly contribute
to spreading awareness about wildlife conservation.
Most zoos are easily accessible to people, are open
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 283

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

year-round and are relatively economical while
having high impact in spreading wildlife awareness.
This gives zoos an edge over more expensive and
relatively less accessible wilderness area such as
wildlife safaris.
B) The disadvantages of establishment of Tiger Safari
inside Tiger Reserves include
i. clearing of vegetation which could be denser in
forest lands; and
ii. accessibility to forest areas may be limited and hence,
the establishment could be resource intensive.”
147. The CEC also gives its opinion about the impact of the Pakhrau
Tiger Safari on the disbursal of tigers from the Corbett Tiger Reserve.
The CEC in its report opines that it may not be feasible to locate
the Tiger Safaris in the Tiger Reserves including the protected area,
buffer zone, on the fringe area.
148. The report of the CEC as also the reports of various Committees
which were constituted as per the directions of the High Court of
Uttarakhand as well as other authorities would clearly show that
there has been rampant deforestation in the Corbett National Park.
A huge number of trees have been felled thereby causing a heavy
loss to the environment.
149. It is also brought to our notice that in the Ramnagar area as
also in other areas around the Corbett Tiger Reserve, there is a
mushrooming growth of resorts, which are acting as a hindrance to
the free movement of animals including the tigers and elephants. It
is also brought to our notice that similarly, there is a mushrooming
growth of resorts around various Tiger Reserves throughout the
country which are now being used as marriage destinations. It is
brought to our notice that in the said resorts, music is played at a
very loud volume which causes disturbance to the habitat of the
forests. Undisputedly, mushrooming growth of resorts within the close
proximity of the protected areas and uncontrolled activities therein,
including sound pollution are capable of causing great harm to the
ecosystem. We propose to issue certain directions in that regard
in the operative part of our judgment.
284 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(f) Principle of Ecological Restitution
150. It will be relevant to refer to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
1992 (“CBD” for short), to which India is a signatory. Article 8 of
the CBD pertains to in situ conservation. Under clause (f) thereof,
it requires the contracting parties to, as far as possible and as
appropriate, to rehabilitate and restore the degraded ecosystems
and promote the recovery of threatened species. It reads thus :
(f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and
promote the recovery of threatened species, inter alia,
through the development and implementation of plans or
other management strategies.
[emphasis supplied]
151. In the Chorzow Factory Case , the Permanent Court of International
13

Justice (PCIJ) laid down the standard in international law for
reparations for the commission of internationally wrongful acts. The
Court held :
“The essential principle contained in the actual notion of
an illegal act – a principle which seems to be established
by international practice and in particular by the decisions
of arbitral tribunals – is that reparation must, as far as
possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal
act and re-establish the situation which would, in
all probability, have existed if that act had not been
committed. Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible,
payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a
restitution in kind would bear; the award, if need be, of
damages for loss sustained which would not be covered
by restitution in kind or payment in place of it -such are the
principles which should serve to determine the amount of
compensation due for an act contrary to international law (…)”
[emphasis supplied]
152. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), while applying the principle
of restoration of degraded ecosystem in the case of Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua14, has observed thus :

13 The Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), 13 September 1928, PCIJ, Merits, p. 47)
14 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, Compensation Judgment, (2018) I.C.J.
Reports 15
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 285

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

“42. The Court is therefore of the view that damage to the
environment, and the consequent impairment or loss of the
ability of the environment to provide goods and services, is
compensable under international law. Such compensation
may include indemnification for the impairment or loss
of environmental goods and services in the period prior
to recovery and payment for the restoration of the
damaged environment.
43. Payment for restoration accounts for the fact that
natural recovery may not always suffice to return an
environment to the state in which it was before the
damage occurred. In such instances, active restoration
measures may be required in order to return the
environment to its prior condition, in so far as that
is possible.
(…)
53. In determining the compensation due for environmental
damage, the Court will assess, as outlined in paragraph
42, the value to be assigned to the restoration of the
damaged environment as well as to the impairment
or loss of environmental goods and services prior
to recovery.”
(emphasis supplied)
153. While considering the aspect of valuation of environmental restoration
costs to be awarded to Costa Rica, the ICJ observed thus :
“85. (…) with respect to biodiversity services (in terms
of nursery and habitat), the “corrected analysis” does
not sufficiently account for the particular importance of
such services in an internationally protected wetland
where the biodiversity was described to be of high value
by the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention. Whatever
regrowth may occur naturally is unlikely to match in
the near future the pre-existing richness of biodiversity
in the area. Thirdly, in relation to gas regulation and
air quality services, Nicaragua’s “corrected analysis”
does not account for the loss of future annual carbon
286 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

sequestration (“carbon flows”), since it characterizes
the loss of those services as a one-time loss. The Court
does not consider that the impairment or loss of gas
regulation and air quality services can be valued as a
one-time loss.
86. The Court recalls (…) that the absence of certainty
as to the extent of damage does not necessarily
preclude it from awarding an amount that it considers
approximately to reflect the value of the impairment
or loss of environmental goods and services. In this
case, the Court, while retaining some of the elements of
the “corrected analysis”, considers it reasonable that, for
the purposes of its overall valuation, an adjustment be
made to the total amount in the “corrected analysis” to
account for the shortcomings identified in the preceding
paragraph. The Court therefore awards to Costa Rica
the sum of US$120,000 for the impairment or loss of the
environmental goods and services of the impacted area
in the period prior to recovery.”
(emphasis supplied)
154. This Court also while applying the principle of environmental
restitution in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
and others v. Union of India and others15 observed thus :
“60. (…) we are of the considered opinion that even if
it is assumed (for the sake of argument) that this Court
cannot award damages against the respondents in these
proceedings that does not mean that the Court cannot direct
the Central Government to determine and recover the
cost of remedial measures from the respondents. Section
3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 expressly
empowers the Central Government (or its delegate, as
the case may be) to “take all such measures as it deems
necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and
improving the quality of environment…”. Section 5 clothes
the Central Government (or its delegate) with the power

15 [1996] 2 SCR 503 : (1996) 3 SCC 212 : 1996 INSC 237
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 287

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

to issue directions for achieving the objects of the Act.
Read with the wide definition of ‘environment’ in Section
2(a), Sections 3 and 5 clothe the Central Government
with all such powers as are “necessary or expedient for
the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the
environment”. The Central Government is empowered to
take all measures and issue all such directions as are called
for for the above purpose. In the present case, the said
powers will include giving directions for the removal
of sludge, for undertaking remedial measures and also
the power to impose the cost of remedial measures
on the offending industry and utilise the amount
so recovered for carrying out remedial measures.
This Court can certainly give directions to the Central
Government/its delegate to take all such measures, if
in a given case this Court finds that such directions are
warranted. (…)
xxx xxx xxx
66. (…) it follows, in the light of our findings recorded
hereinbefore, that Respondents 4 to 8 are absolutely
liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to
the villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to
the underground water and hence, they are bound to
take all necessary measures to remove the sludge
and other pollutants lying in the affected area (…) and
also to defray the cost of the remedial measures
required to restore the soil and the underground
water sources. Sections 3 and 4 of Environment
(Protection) Act confers upon the Central Government
the power to give directions of the above nature and
to the above effect. Levy of costs required for carrying
out remedial measures is implicit in Sections 3 and 4
which are couched in very wide and expansive language.
Appropriate directions can be given by this Court to
the Central Government to invoke and exercise those
powers with such modulations as are called for in the
facts and circumstances of this case.”
[emphasis supplied]
288 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

155. In the case of S. Jagannath v. Union of India and others16, this
Court was considering the issue of pollution created by the industry
which had caused harm to the villagers in the affected area, to the
soil and to the underground water. This Court observed thus :
“49. (…) Consequently the polluting industries are
‘absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by
them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the
underground water and hence, they are bound to take all
necessary measures to remove sludge and other pollutants
lying in the affected areas’. The ‘Polluter Pays Principle’
as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute
liability for harm to the environment extends not
only to compensate the victims of pollution but also
the cost of restoring the environmental degradation.
Remediation of the damaged environment is part
of the process of ‘Sustainable Development’ and as
such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual
sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged
ecology (…).”
[emphasis supplied]
156. It could thus be seen that, worldwide as well as in our jurisprudence,
the law has developed and evolved emphasizing on the restoration
of the damaged ecological system. A reversal of environmental
damage in conformity with the principle under Article 8(f) of the CBD
is what is required. At times, the compensatory afforestation permits
forestation at some other site. However, the principle of restoration
of damaged ecosystem would require the States to promote the
recovery of threatened species. We are of the considered view that
the States would be required to take steps for the identification and
effective implementation of active restoration measures that are
localized to the particular ecosystem that was damaged. The focus
has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar as
possible to the specific one that was damaged.
157. No doubt that the CBI is investigating the issue as to who is
responsible for the same. However, the investigation by the CBI

16 [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 848 : (1997) 2 SCC 87 : 1996 INSC 1466
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 289

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

would only lead to finding out the culprits who are responsible for
such huge devastation. The law will take its own course.
158. We find that, bringing the culprits to face the proceedings is a
different matter and restoration of the damage already done is a
different matter. We are of the considered view that the State cannot
run away from its responsibilities to restore the damage done to
the forest. The State, apart from preventing such acts in the future,
should take immediate steps for restoration of the damage already
done; undertake an exercise for determining the valuation of the
damage done and recover it from the persons found responsible
for causing such a damage.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
159. It is well known that the presence of a Tiger in the forest is an indicator
of the well-being of the ecosystem. Unless steps are taken for the
protection of the Tigers, the ecosystem revolving around Tigers
cannot be protected. The figures which are placed before us to show
that there has been a substantial reduction in tiger poaching and
an increase in the tigers’ strength throughout the country. However,
that should not be enough. The ground realities cannot be denied.
The events like illegal constructions and illicit felling of trees on a
rampant scale like the one that happened in the Corbett National
Park cannot be ignored. Steps are required to prevent this.
160. We therefore requested Shri Chandra Prakash Goyal, former Director
General of Forest, Shri Anup Malik, IFS, PCCF (HoFF), Uttarakhand,
and Dr. Samir Sinha, IFS, PCCF (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden,
Uttarakhand to give their suggestion for more effective management
of the “Tiger Reserves” in India. Accordingly, they have given their
suggestions. No doubt that on some issues there is no coherence
in the suggestions given. They are conflicting and contradictory to
each other. In any event, all three Officers have vast experience
in the Forest Department. Dr. Samir Sinha is a person who has
prepared the TCP for the Corbett Tiger Reserve. Similarly, Shri
Goyal has worked as the Director General of Forest and has also
worked as a Field Director of some of the Tiger Reserves. At the
same time, we are not experts in the field. We therefore find that
it will be appropriate that experts in the field come together and
come out with a solution that would go a long way in the effective
management and protection of the Tiger Reserves.
290 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

161. We therefore find that the following directions need to be issued in
the interests of justice :
A. The Safaris which are already existing and the one under
construction at Pakhrau will not be disturbed. However, insofar
as the Safari at ‘Pakhrau’ is concerned, we direct the State
of Uttarakhand to relocate or establish a rescue centre in the
vicinity of the ‘Tiger Safari’. The directions which would be issued
by this Court with regard to establishment and maintenance
of the ‘Tiger Safaris’ upon receipt of the recommendations of
the Committee which we are directing to be appointed would
also be applicable to the existing Safaris including the Safari
to be established at Pakhrau.
B. The MoEF&CC shall appoint a Committee consisting of the
following :
(i) a representative of the NTCA;
(ii) a representative of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII);
(iii) a representative of the CEC; and
(iv) an officer of the MoEF&CC not below the rank of Joint
Secretary as its Member Secretary.
We however clarify that the Committee would be entitled to
co-opt any other authority including a representative of CZA
and also take the services of the experts in the field, if found
necessary.
C. The said Committee will :
(i) recommend the measures for restoration of the damages,
in the local in situ environment to its original state before
the damage was caused;
(ii) assess the environmental damage caused in the Corbett
Tiger Reserve (CTR) and quantify the costs for restoration;
(iii) identify the persons/officials responsible for such a
damage. Needless to state that the State shall recover
the cost so quantified from the persons/delinquent officers
found responsible for the same. The cost so recovered
shall be exclusively used for the purpose of restoration
of the damage caused to the environment.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 291

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

(iv) specify how the funds so collected be utilized for active
restoration of ecological damage.
D. The aforesaid Committee, inter alia, shall consider and
recommend :
(i) The question as to whether Tiger Safaris shall be permitted
in the buffer area or fringe area.
(ii) If such Safaris can be permitted, then what should be the
guidelines for establishing such Safaris?
(iii) While considering the aforesaid aspect, the Committee
shall take into consideration the following factors :
a) the approach must be of ecocentrism and not of
anthropocentrism;
b) the precautionary principle must be applied to ensure
that the least amount of environmental damage is
caused;
c) the animals sourced shall not be from outside the
Tiger Reserve. Only injured, conflicted, or orphaned
tigers may be exhibited as per the 2016 Guidelines.
To that extent the contrary provisions in the 2019
Guidelines stand quashed.
d) That such Safaris should be proximate to the Rescue
Centres.
Needles to state that the aforesaid factors are only some
of the factors to be taken into consideration and the
Committee would always be at liberty to take such other
factors into consideration as it deems fit.
(iv) The type of activities that should be permitted and
prohibited in the buffer zone and fringe areas of the Tiger
Reserve. While doing so, if tourism is to be promoted,
it has to be eco-tourism. The type of construction that
should be permissible in such resorts would be in tune
with the natural environment.
(v) The number and type of resorts that should be permitted
within the close proximity of the protected areas. What
restriction to be imposed on such resorts so that they
292 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

are managed in tune with the object of protecting and
maintaining the ecosystem rather than causing obstruction
in the same.
(vi) As to within how much areas from the boundary of the
protected forest there should be restriction on noise level
and what should be those permissible noise levels.
(vii) The measures that are required to be taken for effective
management and protection of Tiger Reserves which shall
be applicable on a Pan India basis.
(viii) The steps to be taken for scrupulously implementing such
recommendations.
E. The CBI is directed to effectively investigate the matter as
directed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in its
judgment and order dated 6th September 2023, passed in Writ
Petition No.178 of 2021.
F. The present proceedings shall be kept pending so that this
Court can monitor the steps taken by the Authorities as well
as the investigation conducted by the CBI.
G. We will consider issuing appropriate directions after the
recommendations are received by this Court from the aforesaid
Committee. We request the Committee to give its preliminary
report within a period of three months from today.
H. The CBI shall submit a report to this Court within a period
of three months from today. We request the learned ASG to
communicate this order to the Director, CBI.
I. The State of Uttarakhand is directed to complete the disciplinary
proceedings against the delinquent officers as expeditiously as
possible and in any case, within a period of six months from
today. The status report in this regard shall be submitted to
this Court within a period of three months from today.
162. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered
by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned
Senior Counsel, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, applicant-in-person.
However, we will be failing in our duty if we do not make a special
mention of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned Amicus Curiae. His in-depth research and meticulous
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 293

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

formulations have immensely assisted us in deciding this issue,
which is of paramount importance to environmental and ecological
justice. We direct the State of Uttarakhand to pay an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh) to Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned
Amicus Curiae, as honorarium.
163. The matter is stand over for Twelve (12) weeks.

Headnotes prepared by : Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Result of the case :
Directions issued.