Summary
Tiger conservation—Pakhrau safari and illegal construction in Corbett Tiger Reserve. The Court preserved existing safaris and the Pakhrau project, subject to further directions, but quashed the 2019 guidelines insofar as they permitted animals inconsistent with the 2016 sourcing restrictions. It directed an expert committee to assess ecological damage, recommend local restoration and examine future safari policy; ordered recovery from those found responsible; and retained monitoring of the CBI investigation and disciplinary action.
Issues
- Whether tiger safaris in reserve buffer areas can be treated as ordinary zoos and source animals from outside the reserve.
- Whether the Pakhrau safari should be disturbed for non-compliance with the site-selection procedure.
- What restoration, accountability and regulatory measures were required following illegal construction and tree felling in Corbett Tiger Reserve.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(39), 33(a), 35(8), 38-I, 38-O, 38V and 38XA, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972The statutory scheme prioritises conservation, habitat integrity and protected-area safeguards. In-situ tiger safaris differ from ordinary ex-situ zoos; the NTCA has the central conservation role, with CZA expertise available. Buffer-area coexistence does not dispense with ecological protection. (¶ 79–103)
- Articles 48A and 51A(g), Constitution of IndiaEnvironmental duties support an ecocentric approach, sustainable development and protection of natural resources held by the State in public trust. (¶¶ 68–77, 133–138)
- 2016 clauses 9–10; contrary 2019 animal-selection provisions, NTCA Guidelines for Tiger Safaris, 2016 and 2019Only the specified injured, conflict or orphaned tigers may be exhibited, without sourcing animals from outside the reserve; contrary 2019 provisions were quashed. Technical site-selection non-compliance did not warrant disturbing Pakhrau in its peculiar circumstances. (¶¶ 95–114, 161(A), 161(D)(iii))
- Article 8(f), Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992Ecological restitution requires active restoration localised to the damaged ecosystem, as close as possible to its previous condition; compensatory afforestation elsewhere may not suffice. (¶ 150–158)
Held
- Tiger conservation requires an ecocentric approach that protects core habitats, buffer integrity and dispersal corridors while recognising local livelihood interests. Safaris directed to in-situ rehabilitation cannot simply adopt the ordinary zoo model or transfer conservation primacy from the NTCA to the CZA. (¶ 84–103)
- Despite technical non-compliance with the committee-based location procedure, the approvals, involvement of the relevant authorities, site conditions and substantial completion justified preserving Pakhrau in these peculiar facts. Uttarakhand must relocate or establish a rescue centre nearby. Existing safaris, including Pakhrau, remain subject to further Court directions following expert recommendations. (¶¶ 110–114, 161(A))
- The expert committee must examine whether future safaris should be permitted in buffer or fringe areas and on what conditions. It must apply ecocentrism and precaution, restrict exhibition to the 2016 categories without outside-reserve sourcing, and consider proximity to rescue centres. Contrary 2019 sourcing provisions stand quashed. This is not an unconditional approval of future safari projects. (¶¶ 161(B), 161(D)(i)–(iii))
- The illegal construction and large-scale felling represented a serious breach of the public trust. Criminal investigation and ecological restoration are separate responsibilities: the State must restore the damaged ecosystem and cannot await identification and prosecution of every culprit. (¶¶ 123–138, 148–158)
- The committee must assess Corbett’s environmental damage, quantify restoration costs, identify responsible persons or officials and recommend local restoration and use of recovered funds. The State must recover the quantified costs from those found responsible, exclusively for restoring the environmental damage. (¶ 161(B)–(C))
- The committee must recommend permissible buffer and fringe activities, eco-tourism and construction standards, resort restrictions, noise controls, nationwide reserve-management measures and effective implementation. Its preliminary report was requested within three months of the judgment. (¶¶ 161(D), 161(G))
- The CBI must effectively investigate under the High Court’s direction and report within three months. Uttarakhand must complete disciplinary proceedings within six months and submit a status report within three months. Proceedings remain pending for monitoring; these directions do not constitute a criminal conviction. (¶¶ 157–158, 161(E)–(I))
- Uttarakhand was directed to pay the amicus Rs 10 lakh as honorarium; the matter was adjourned for twelve weeks. (¶ 162–163)
Result
Directions issued; proceedings retained for monitoring. Existing safaris and Pakhrau preserved subject to further directions; contrary 2019 animal-sourcing provisions quashed; expert review, ecological restoration, cost recovery, CBI reporting and disciplinary action directed.