Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 |
| Diary Number | 2997/1995 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (B.R. Gavai) |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on all subordinate courts in environmental and wildlife matters |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms statutory scheme under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and prior Supreme Court precedent in T.N. Godavarman; upholds quasi-in-situ safari model |
| Type of Law | Environmental and wildlife conservation; statutory interpretation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that under Section 38-V of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, tiger safaris are strictly prohibited in core or critical tiger habitats but may be permitted on non-forest or degraded forest lands within the buffer—provided these sites do not form part of a tiger corridor, house a rescue centre, comply with ESZ restrictions and strict design, operational and ecological guidelines issued by the NTCA and monitored by the CEC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The State of Uttarakhand constructed a “Tiger Safari” at Pakhrau inside Corbett Tiger Reserve’s buffer, causing unauthorized clearing, tree-felling and habitat damage. The Supreme Court (B.R. Gavai, CJI) directed an Expert Committee to assess damage, quantify restoration costs, recommend safari-management guidelines and identify delinquent officers, and thereafter issued binding pan-India directions based on the Committee’s report. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and forest/wildlife authorities across India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, National Green Tribunal, environmental tribunals |
| Overrules | NTCA’s 2019 Guidelines, Clause 9 (permitting zoo-sourced animals) as quashed in T.N. Godavarman |
| Follows | T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2025) 2 SCC 641 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that tiger safaris are strictly prohibited in core/critical tiger habitats under Section 38-V of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
- Permits safaris only on non-forest or degraded forest lands in buffer areas, provided these do not form part of tiger corridors.
- Mandates co-location of safaris with full-fledged rescue and rehabilitation centres for conflict, injured or orphaned tigers.
- Requires buffer lands to be notified as Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) including minimum 1 km radial cushion, invoking 2011 ESZ Notification restrictions.
- Imposes strict design, operational and carrying-capacity standards: no contact between wild and captive populations; CZA-approved enclosures; zero wastewater discharge; solar/hybrid vehicles; wildlife-centric tourism.
- Directs all States to notify core/buffer areas, prepare Tiger Conservation Plans (TCPs) and steering committees, within specified deadlines.
- Endorses the principle of ecological restitution: habitat restoration under CEC supervision to reverse damage.
- Emphasizes pan-India measures: vacancy fill-ups, specialized wildlife cadres, funding SOP, human-wildlife conflict Model Guidelines, fast-track wildlife courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Framework: Section 38-V WLP Act defines core (inviolate) and buffer (multiple-use) zones; Chapter IVA & IVB impose heightened protection for tiger reserves.
- Constitutional and International Mandates: Articles 21, 48A, 51A(g) and Article 8(f) CBD enforce ecological restoration and the “polluter pays” principle.
- Precedent Analysis: Affirms T.N. Godavarman’s recognition of in-situ conservation, quashing zoo-sourced animal provisions; follows Ajay Dubey on NTCA tourism guidelines.
- Expert Committee Report: Field assessments estimated 118 ha habitat damage; restoration costs quantified; detailed safari and buffer-zone guidelines proposed.
- Proportionality and Ecocentrism: Applies precautionary principle and ecocentric approach to ensure minimal ecological disruption.
- Binding Directions: Prohibits safari in core habitats; permits regulated safaris in buffer only under CZA/NTCA/CEC oversight; mandates ESZ notification and TCPs; directs habitat restoration by State under CEC supervision.
Factual Background
Between investigation and judicial review of unauthorized construction and tree-felling for a proposed Tiger Safari in Corbett Tiger Reserve’s buffer, the Supreme Court directed (March 2024) constitution of an Expert Committee. The Committee inspected field sites, consulted technical experts and quantified ecological damage. Its report (June 2024) recommended habitat restoration measures totalling an estimated ₹30 Cr, strict site-selection criteria, design and operational standards for safaris, and pan-India wildlife-management reforms. The Court’s May 2025 order accepted these recommendations and issued binding guidelines to all States.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 38-V, WLP Act, 1972: Defines “tiger reserve” including core (inviolate) and buffer (co-existence) areas; mandates consultative process for delineation.
- Chapter IVA & IVB: Provide special protection and management for tiger reserves above national parks/sanctuaries.
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – ESZ Notification, 2011: Restricts industrial/mining activities and mandates 1 km buffer around protected areas; extended here to tiger-reserve buffers.
- Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 (Art. 8(f)): Obligates restoration of degraded ecosystems.
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Chapter IIIA: Constitutes NTCA to oversee tiger conservation and tourism guidelines.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms and implements existing Supreme Court and statutory norms on tiger reserves and safaris.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Deadlines imposed for ESZ notification, TCP preparation, steering committee constitution, funding policy and human-wildlife conflict guidelines.