Must State Governments Promptly Notify Ecologically Significant Forests as Wildlife Sanctuaries Under Section 26A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act?

LawSikho
November 16, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	W.P.(C) No.-000202-000202 – 1995
Diary Number	2997/1995
Judge Name	HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Bench	HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
Precedent Value	Binding authority on notification of wildlife sanctuaries under Section 26A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms existing precedents on statutory duty and constitutional mandate for wildlife protection
Type of Law	Environmental – Wildlife protection
Questions of Law	Whether a State must, under Section 26A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and Articles 48A & 51A(g) of the Constitution, notify ecologically significant forest areas—such as Saranda—for protection as wildlife sanctuaries, and whether exclusions may be limited to compartments with valid mining zones
Ratio Decidendi	A State’s power to notify a sanctuary under Section 18/26A is coupled with the duty to protect areas of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance. Constitutional obligations under Articles 48A and 51A(g) and statutory mandates in the WP Act and FRA require expeditious sanctuary notifications. Scientific reports (WII, MPSM) demonstrate Saranda’s critical biodiversity value. Rights of tribal and forest-dwelling communities remain protected under FRA Sections 3 & 4 and WP Act Section 24(2)(c). Only six compartments designated for mining zones I & II may be excluded from the notified area.
Judgments Relied Upon	Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India Goa Foundation v. Union of India Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal (T.N. Godavarman proceedings) Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF Centre for Environmental Law WWF-India v. Union of India
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Articles 48A & 51A(g) of the Constitution mandate forest and wildlife protection. WP Act Sections 18, 19, 24, 26A set out a procedural and substantive duty to notify sanctuaries and protect existing rights. FRA Sections 3 & 4 recognize and vest forest rights of tribal and traditional forest dwellers. WII report (30.05.2025) and MPSM (2018) confirm Saranda’s biodiversity significance. Supreme Court’s inherent power under Article 142, and contempt powers to enforce timelines.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Saranda is a 31,468.25 ha Sal forest with critical wildlife and biodiversity. 1968 Bihar notification declared it a game sanctuary; Jharkhand later failed to declare it under WP Act. NGT (12.07.2022) directed consideration of sanctuary status; no action followed. Multiple affidavits and IAs revealed State’s dilatory tactics, shifting proposed areas from 31,468.25 ha to 57,519.41 ha, then to 24,941.64 ha. Supreme Court imposed deadlines, held State in contempt, and mandated notification of 126 compartments (minus six with mining zones).

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	State of Jharkhand; all State Governments considering sanctuary notifications under WP Act
Persuasive For	Other High Courts and Union Territories dealing with WP Act notifications; administrative authorities under MoEF&CC
Follows	Established precedents on sanctuary notifications, constitutional environmental duties, FRA protections, and NGT directions

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Supreme Court holds that Section 26A WP Act duty to notify sanctuaries is mandatory once ecological significance is established.
Confirmation that FRA Sections 3 & 4 and WP Act Section 24(2)(c) safeguard individual and community forest rights within sanctuaries.
Endorses use of expert reports (WII, MPSM) as binding scientific basis for sanctuary boundaries.
Limits State exclusions to compartments formally designated Mining Zone I/II in MPSM.
Demonstrates Court’s readiness to invoke contempt and Article 142 to enforce environmental directives.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Statutory Duty: WP Act Section 18 empowers and Section 26A mandates notification of sanctuaries for areas of “ecological, faunal, floral… significance.”
Rights Protection: WP Act Section 24(2)(c) and FRA Sections 3–4 preserve existing individual and community rights after notification.
Constitutional Mandate: Articles 48A & 51A(g) impose duties on State and citizens to protect forests and wildlife.
Scientific Foundation: WII (30.05.2025) and MPSM (2018) confirm Saranda’s biodiversity value and identify mining/no-mining zones.
Procedural Enforcement: Supreme Court set strict timelines; held State in contempt for delays, demonstrating enforcement under Article 142.
Final Direction: Notify 126 compartments (31,468.25 ha) as Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary, excluding six compartments in mining zones I & II, within three months.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Saranda area is a biodiversity hotspot requiring statutory protection.
Jharkhand’s delay violates constitutional and statutory duties.
Sanctuary declaration will curb habitat disturbance from mining.

Applicant-Intervenor

Ancillary mining infrastructure lies within 1 km ESZ and must be safeguarded.
Continued operation of existing mines and related works should not be impeded.

Respondent

Region inhabited by Scheduled Tribes; sanctuary status might displace communities.
Includes vital public infrastructure (roads, schools, agricultural lands).
Iron ore reserves in Saranda are critical for regional economy and industry.

Factual Background

Saranda in Jharkhand is one of the world’s largest contiguous Sal forests and forms part of an elephant corridor. A 1968 Bihar notification declared 31,468.25 ha as a game sanctuary, but after State bifurcation, Jharkhand failed to convert it into a wildlife sanctuary under the WP Act. The NGT directed sanctuary consideration in July 2022, yet the State repeatedly shifted the proposed area and delayed decisions. Multiple Supreme Court orders imposed deadlines and held the State in contempt. After expert input from WII and MPSM, the Court mandated notification of 126 compartments (excluding six mining-zone compartments) as Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary within three months.

Statutory Analysis

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
- Section 18: Power to notify sanctuaries.
- Section 19–24: Claims, inquiries, and retention of rights.
- Section 26A: Mandatory notification post-claims for reserve forests or ecologically significant areas.
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
- Section 3: Recognises individual and community forest rights.
- Section 4: Vests forest rights despite other laws; prescribes stringent provisions for relocations in sanctuaries.
Constitution of India
- Article 48A: State duty to protect environment, forests, and wildlife.
- Article 51A(g): Citizen’s duty to protect natural environment.

Procedural Innovations

Court’s use of contempt powers to enforce environmental mandates.
Imposition of strict timelines for expert report (WII) and final notifications.
Invocation of Article 142 to fill statutory and administrative gaps.
Direct oversight requiring personal presence of State Secretary and Chief Secretary.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established environmental duties and statutory scheme under WP Act and FRA.
🚨 Time-Sensitive – Strict deadlines imposed for sanctuary notification and expert comments.