IN RE - T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Sandeep Mehta

Case summary

and dealt with under Chapter IVA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and 'Tiger Safaris' as

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In Re : T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. [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 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 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 (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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 : 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. 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, 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 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. 10On 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. 11In 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. 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. 12We 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 bleakpicture 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 (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. 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 (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 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 (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. 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 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" 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 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 offexhibit 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 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 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 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 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. 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 (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.

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 (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-- 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 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. 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 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 socioeconomic 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 Authori