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; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior Supreme Court precedents, notably T.N. Godavarman (2025) 2 SCC 641 |
| Type of Law | Environmental / Wildlife Conservation Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that core and critical tiger habitats are inviolable under Section 38-V(4)(i) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and Tiger Safaris may be established only on non-forest or degraded forest land in buffer areas that do not form part of dispersal corridors. Buffer zones must be notified as Eco-Sensitive Zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and subject to minimum restrictions from the 2011 ESZ Notification. Tiger Safaris must be linked with rescue-rehabilitation centres, adhere to NTCA’s 2019 guidelines (with sourcing limited to conflict or orphaned animals), and follow strict eco-centric, zero-discharge, carrying-capacity, enclosure-design, and waste-management protocols. States must prepare Tiger Conservation Plans, notify buffer and core areas, constitute steering committees, fill key staff vacancies, and ensure timely funding via policy frameworks monitored by NTCA and CEC. Restoration of ecological damage in Corbett Tiger Reserve must proceed under CEC supervision. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The Corbett Tiger Reserve witnessed illegal constructions and tree felling for a proposed Pakhrau Tiger Safari, prompting this Court (in March 2024) to appoint an Expert Committee to recommend restoration measures, governance protocols, and ecological safeguards. The Committee’s report quantified restoration costs, proposed demolition of unauthorised structures, and set comprehensive guidelines for buffer-area safaris. The Supreme Court reviewed the report, directed States to notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves, prepare Tiger Conservation Plans, fill staffing vacancies, and supervise ecological restoration under the CEC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts; State Governments; National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA); Central Empowered Committee (CEC) |
| Persuasive For | High Courts; tribunals dealing with environmental and wildlife cases |
| Follows | T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2025) 2 SCC 641 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Tiger Safaris are categorically prohibited in core and critical tiger habitats; only non-forest or degraded buffer lands may host safaris outside dispersal corridors.
- Buffer zones of Tiger Reserves must now be notified as Eco-Sensitive Zones under the 2011 ESZ Notification, triggering minimum statutory restrictions.
- Restoration of ecological damage (e.g., in Corbett Tiger Reserve) must be supervised by the CEC, with demolition of unauthorised structures and native-species afforestation.
- Only conflict-rescued, injured, or orphaned tigers from the same reserve or landscape may be housed; ex-situ sourcing is disallowed.
- States must prepare or update Tiger Conservation Plans within 3–6 months, notify core/buffer areas, constitute steering committees meeting biannually, and fill key vacancies.
- NTCA’s 2019 Safari guidelines gain final authority for in-situ safaris; strict protocols on carrying capacity, enclosure design, zero-discharge, and vehicle emissions apply.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Statutory Mandate & Definitions
- WLP Act Sec. 38-V(4) establishes core (inviolate) and buffer areas; buffer lands allow limited human use.
- ESZ Notification (2011) provides protective regime around Protected Areas; buffer zones must assume these protections.
-
Ecocentrism & Precautionary Principle
- Court applies ecocentric approach, prioritising ecosystem health over anthropocentric tourism.
- Precautionary principle demands minimum environmental damage and rigorous safeguards.
-
Restorative Obligations
- Under Articles 21, 48A, 51A(g) Constitution and NGT Act Sec. 15(4), polluter pays and restitution of damaged environment are mandatory.
- Expert Committee’s cost assessments guide demolition and reforestation plans in Corbett.
-
Governance & Institutional Mechanisms
- Expert Committee report (March–June 2024) forms basis for new directions.
- States must notify ESZs, frame Tiger Conservation Plans, and constitute Steering Committees to ensure landscape-level conservation.
-
Tiger Safari Protocols
- Only buffer or fringe lands not in corridors; safaris paired with rescue-rehabilitation centres; CZA-approved enclosures; no wild-captive interaction; financial returns to Tiger Conservation Foundations.
-
Enforcement & Funding
- Mandatory timelines for TCPs, ESZ notifications, staff-cadre reviews, and policy frameworks on funding by MoEF&CC, NTCA, CEC.
- Directives for human-wildlife conflict model guidelines and fast-track courts.
Factual Background
In 1995, writ petitions challenged illegal constructions and tree felling in the Corbett Tiger Reserve for a proposed Tiger Safari at Pakhrau. In March 2024, the Supreme Court directed the MoEF&CC to constitute an Expert Committee to recommend restoration measures, safari guidelines, and identify delinquent officers. After the Committee’s report (June 2024) quantified ecological damage and drafted detailed protocols for safaris, this judgment reviews and adopts those recommendations, issuing binding directions on restoration, ESZ notifications, Tiger Conservation Plans, staffing, and regulatory safeguards.
Statutory Analysis
-
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
- Sec. 2(24-A): defines “Protected Area” (National Park, Sanctuary, etc.).
- Sec. 38-V(4): tiger reserves comprise core (critical tiger habitat; inviolate) and buffer (peripheral sustainable use) areas.
-
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
- Eco-Sensitive Zone Notification (09.02.2011): prescribes activities prohibited/regulated within ESZs.
-
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
- Sec. 15(4): empowers restitution for damaged environment (polluter-pays).
-
Constitution of India
- Art. 21, Art. 48A, Art. 51A(g): duty to protect environment, forests, and wildlife.
Procedural Innovations
- Mandated creation of a Special Cell by CEC and MoEF&CC to review Tiger Reserve staffing patterns and cadre needs.
- Timelines and monitoring roles for Steering Committees to oversee TCP formulation and ESZ notifications.
- Directive for NTCA to frame model guidelines on human-wildlife conflict management for nationwide uniformity.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed