In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India

2025 INSC 1325 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN RE : CORBETT I.A. NO. 20650 of 2023 (CEC REPORT No. 3 of 2023) WITH I.A. NO. 75033 OF 2023 AND I.A. No. 199355 of 2024 (CEC Report No. 16 of 2024) IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD … PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

IN THE MATTER OF: GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL … APPLICANT

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.17 17:42:19 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 INDEX

I. BACKGROUND............................................................3 (A) The importance of tigers and their conservation in India……………………………………………………………………….5 (B) Tiger safaris and their regulatory scheme ........................ 9 (C) Corbett Tiger Reserve ..................................................... 13 (D) Directions issued by this court in its judgment and order dated 6th March 2024 .............................................................. 14 II. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS .......................22 III. THE EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT ..........................25 (A) Recommendations with respect to Corbett Tiger Reserve …………………………………………………………………27 (B) General Recommendations ............................................. 29 IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ....................................48 V. CONCLUSION ...........................................................52

ABBREVIATIONS CEC Central Empowered Committee CSS-IDWH Central Scheme for Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats CZA Central Zoo Authority ESZ Eco-Sensitive Zone MoEF&CC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change NTCA National Tiger Conservation Authority TCL Tiger conservation landscapes TCP Tiger Conservation Plan WLP Act Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

Page 2 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, CJI

I. BACKGROUND

1. This Court, in its judgment and order dated 6th March

20241 passed in the present proceedings [to which one of us,

Gavai, J. (as he then was) was a member], considered the

statutory and regulatory framework for the establishment of

Tiger Safaris in Tiger Reserves, and issued various detailed

directions pertaining to the establishment of a Tiger Safari at

Pakhrau as well as with regard to illegal construction and felling

of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve. In the said judgment and

order, the existing Tiger Safaris and those under construction

(including the one at Pakhrau) were not outrightly prohibited but

were made subject to stricter standards. Therefore, in order to

develop these standards in a scientific and rational manner, this

Court directed constitution of an Expert Committee that would

carry out an in-depth inquiry, and make recommendations

based on various aspects as laid down in the said judgment and

order dated 6th March 2024, specifically including – restoration,

1 (2025) 2 SCC 641, hereinafter referred to as “T.N. Godavarman”

Page 3 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 governance, and operational protocols for Tiger Safaris, as well

as guidelines for mitigation of ecological damage. The Expert

Committee was also specifically tasked with identifying the

officials who were personally liable for the damage caused to the

Corbett Tiger Reserve.

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Expert Committee

was constituted by the MoEF&CC vide an Office Memorandum

dated 15th March 2024. The Expert Committee has submitted its

report and the copies of the said report were supplied to the

parties.

3. We have heard Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus

Curiae, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor

General and Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, applicant in person with

regard to their contentions concerning the said report. After

considering their contentions, by way of the present Judgment,

we propose to issue directions in continuation of those issued by

this Court vide judgment and order dated 6th March 2024 passed

in the present proceedings.

4. However, before we proceed further, it would be appropriate

to recapitulate the relevant background vis-à-vis the tiger

Page 4 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 population in India, the Government’s conservational efforts, the

significance of Corbett National Park, and the directions issued

by this Court on 6th March 2024.

(a) The importance of tigers and their conservation in India 5. The tiger, as the apex predator of its ecosystem in India,

plays a central role in maintaining the overall ecological balance,

and regulating natural processes in the forest.2 Its survival

ensures the health of forest ecosystems, biodiversity, water

security, and overall climate stability.3 Presently, however, tiger

populations survive within less than 7% of their historical range,

restricted to fragmented habitats spread across 12 recognized

Tiger Conservation Landscapes (hereinafter referred to as “TCLs”)

in Asia.4 Of these, 6 priority TCLs for long-term conservation are

located in the Indian subcontinent. India assumes a special

responsibility, as it is home to more than 80% of the world’s

free-ranging tiger population, representing over 60% of the

2 J. Terborgh, “Diversity and the Topical Rain Forest” (1991, Freeman New

York, xii + 242 pp.). 3 M. Sunquist, K.U. Karanth and F. Sunquist, “Ecology, behavior and

resilience of the tiger and its conservation needs” (1999, Pages 5-18). 4 J. Goodrich, A. Lynam, D. Miquelle, H. Wibisono, K. Kawanishi, A.

Pattanavibool, S. Htun, T. Tempa, J. Karki, Y. Jhala and U. Karanth, “Panthera tigris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species” (2015).

Page 5 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 species’ genetic diversity.5 The country’s contribution in terms of

conservation efforts, is therefore, pivotal to the objectives of the

Global Tiger Recovery Plan, which was adopted by the world

leaders at St. Petersburg in 2010.6

6. In India, tigers inhabit a wide variety of habitats ranging

from the high mountains, mangrove swamps, tall grasslands, to

dry and moist deciduous forests, as well as evergreen and shola

forest systems. By virtue of this, the tiger also acts as an

umbrella species for a majority of eco-regions in the Indian

subcontinent.7 Tigers, however, also require large undisturbed

forested landscapes with ample prey to raise young cubs and

maintain long-term genetic and demographic viability.8 With

India’s burgeoning population, and the corresponding

ever-expanding demand for land, conserving this species

requires innovative approaches to land-use planning that can

5 E. Dinerstein, C. Loucks, E. Wikramanayake, J. Ginsberg, E. Sanderson,

J. Seidensticker, J. Forrest, G. Bryja, A. Heydlauff, S. Klenzendorf, P. Leimgruber, J. Mills, T.G. O'Brien, M. Shrestha, R. Simons and M. Songer, “The fate of wild tigers” (2007). 6 S. Mondol, K.U. Karanth and U. Ramakrishnan, “Why the Indian subcontinent holds the key to global tiger recovery” (2009). 7 J. Seidensticker, C. McDougal, N. Dunstone and M.L. Gorman, “Tiger

predatory behaviour, ecology and conservation” (1993, Pages 105-125). 8 K.U. Karanth and M.E. Sunquist, “Prey selection by tiger, leopard and

dhole in tropical forests”, 64(4) Journal of Animal Ecology 439, 445 (1995).

Page 6 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 maintain connectivity between tiger source populations in a

‘metapopulation’ framework.9

7. In 1973, the Government of India launched its pioneering

initiative – “Project Tiger”, to optimise efforts towards conserving

the country’s national animal. The Project aimed to leverage the

functional role of the tiger in its habitat, and its unique

charisma, to garner resources and public support for conserving

‘representative ecosystems’. From 9 tiger reserves (spanning

18,278 km) in its initial years, the expanse of Project Tiger has

increased to 51 reserves (covering 72,749 km, at present), in over

18 states. Cumulatively, this accounts for roughly 2.23% of the

geographical area of our country.10 Pertinently, these tiger

reserves are constituted on a ‘core/buffer’ strategy. The core area

has the legal status of a national park or a sanctuary, whereas

the buffer or peripheral areas are a mix of forest and non-forest

land, managed as a hybrid multiple-use area. The Project Tiger

aims to foster an exclusive tiger agenda in the core areas, with

9 Y.V. Jhala, Q. Quereshi and A.K. Nayak, “Status of Tigers, copredators

and prey in India, 2018. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun (eds. 2020, p. 6 – ISBN No. 81-85496-50-1). 10 National Tiger Conservation Authority of India, https://ntca.gov.in/about-us/#project-tiger.

Page 7 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 an inclusive people-oriented agenda in the buffer zones of the

reserve. The Project also paves way specifically for conservation

of tiger population in designated tiger reserves. Despite this aim,

many Tiger Reserves and Protected Areas in India are analogous

to small islands in a vast sea of ecologically unsustainable land

of varying degrees.11 Many tiger populations are confined within

small ‘Protected Areas’, with some having habitat corridors that

permit tiger movement between them.12 However, most corridor

habitats in India are not Protected Areas, and hence, are

degrading due to unsustainable human use and developmental

projects in those region.

8. The National Tiger Conservation Authority (hereinafter

referred to as “NTCA”), constituted under Section 38-L of the

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “WLP

Act”), also functions in a similar domain, focussing on tiger

conservation work in India. The scope of NTCA’s work ranges

from on-ground protection initiatives, science-based monitoring

of tigers and their habitat using latest technological tools,

11 Y.V. Jhala, Q. Quereshi and A.K. Nayak, “Status of Tigers, copredators

and prey in India, 2018. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun (eds. 2020, p. 6 – ISBN No. 81-85496-50-1). 12 Ibid.

Page 8 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 independent assessment of tiger reserves with Management

Effectiveness Evaluation framework, financial and technical

support to tiger reserves, creating inviolate spaces for wildlife

while ensuring community development, to fostering

international co-operation.13 The objectives of the NTCA include:

(i) providing statutory authority to Project Tiger so that

compliance of its directives become legal; (ii) fostering

accountability of both the Centre and the States, in management

of Tiger Reserves, by providing a basis for MoU with States within

India’s federal structure; (iii) providing an oversight mechanism

by Parliament; and (iv) addressing livelihood interests of local

people in areas surrounding Tiger Reserves.14

(b) Tiger Safaris and their regulatory scheme 9. The concept of a ‘Tiger Safari’ in the wild, was introduced

for the first time by the Central Government in its Tourism

Guidelines, 2012. This provided for the creation of Tiger Safaris

in the buffer area of tiger reserves, which experience large

tourism footfall. The Guidelines also prescribed the

13 National Tiger Conservation Authority of India, https://ntca.gov.in/about-us/#our-work. 14 National Tiger Conservation Authority of India, https://ntca.gov.in/about-us/#ntca.

Page 9 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 establishment of interpretation and awareness centres in these

buffer areas, to foster awareness on conservation efforts and the

ecological balance they seek to protect, to in turn, garner public

support. The local Panchayati Raj institutions were tasked with

running these newly established centres. The establishment of

such ‘safaris’ in the buffer zone demonstrably generates

employment for the local people and promotes co-existence

between wildlife and humans.

10. Until 2016, the regulatory regime only recognized safaris as

being an ex-situ mode of conservation. With the 2016 Guidelines,

the focus shifted to in-situ conservation. These guidelines

prescribed the basic criteria and procedure to be followed in the

buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves for dealing with the

establishment, management and administration of Tiger Safaris.

Clause 8 provides that, tourism activities in the tiger reserves

are regulated by the normative guidelines on tourism issued by

the NTCA as well as by the prescriptions on eco-tourism as

contained in the Tiger Conservation Plan (hereinafter referred to

as “TCP”) of the tiger reserves.

11. Clause 10 of the 2016 Guidelines provides that the location

of the tiger safari shall be identified preferably in the buffer (not

Page 10 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 falling in notified National Parks and/or Wildlife Sanctuary) or

peripheral area of the tiger reserve, based on the

recommendations of a committee comprising of members from

the NTCA, Central Zoo Authority (hereinafter referred to as

“CZA”), Forest Department of the concerned State, an

experienced tiger biologist/scientist/conservationist and a

representative nominated by the Chief Wildlife Warden of the

concerned State. It also provides that tiger dispersal routes shall

be avoided in all circumstances. Mandating that the area of a

Safari Park should be as large as possible, it also prescribes that

the minimum area of a tiger safari should be 40 hectares,

extendable as per requirements. It describes that the topography

for the safari should be undulating and well-draining, without

steep slopes; and that the vegetation maintained in the Park

should be indigenous, the density of flora regulated according to

needs and with the objective of providing a naturalistic effect. It

should also provide shelters and withdrawal areas for animals.

It further prescribes that the entire safari area should be

surrounded by a suitable peripheral chain link fence. The said

chain link fence should be of a minimum height of 5 meters with

a suitable both way overhang at the top or as prescribed by the

Page 11 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 CZA from time to time. It also provides that a buffer zone (strip)

of about 5 meters width be provided around the fenced area and

requires the creation of a watch tower of about 5 meters in

height. It also provides for the sensitization of visitors at

designated ‘Visitor Centres’.

12. The NTCA issued fresh guidelines in November 2019. These

2019 Guidelines are similar to the 2016 Guidelines – with the

exception of Clause 9 of the former, which provides that the

selection of the animal shall be done in conformity with Section

38-I of the WLP Act after due approval of the CZA. Clause 9 was

disapproved by this Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra). It was

held that the 2019 Guidelines, which permitted the sourcing of

animals from zoos was totally contrary to the purpose of tiger

conservation, and to that extent the offending provisions in the

2019 Guidelines were quashed. It was further clarified that since

the establishment of Tiger Safaris would virtually be for ‘in-situ’

conservation and protection of the species, it is the NTCA that

shall have the final authority.

Page 12 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (c) Corbett Tiger Reserve 13. The Corbett National Park is one of India’s oldest parks

(declared under the United Provinces National Park Act, 1935)

and a significant site for tiger conservation given that it houses

the source population of tigers in the Shivalik-Gangetic

landscape. After the launch of Project Tiger (and consequent

amendments to the WLP Act), it was notified as a Tiger Reserve

encompassing 1,288.31 sq. km in 2010, by the State of

Uttarakhand. Out of this total area, 821.99 sq. km. constitutes

the core critical tiger habitat, which includes 520.82 sq. km. of

the Corbett National Park and 301.17 sq. km. of the Sonanadi

Sanctuary. The remaining area of 466.32 sq. km. forms the

buffer zone, with 306.90 sq. km. in Kalagarh and 159.4 sq. km.

in the Ramnagar forest divisions. The forest within this Reserve

serves as a vital corridor connecting the reserve with the Rajaji

National Park. It maintains a high density of tigers due to its

abundant prey base and functions as a key contributor to tiger

conservation, facilitating dispersal into neighbouring protected

areas such as Lansdowne, Terai West, Amangarh, and

Ramnagar forest divisions. It is recognized that Corbett hosts the

largest tiger population within any single protected area globally.

Page 13 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Therefore, its position in the Terai Landscape ensures long-term

continuity of tigers, provided there are serious efforts by the

respective Governments to safeguard the connectivity between

different units. It is also an extremely rich habitat for an array of

bird species, with almost 50% of the bird species of the

subcontinent being found in the reserve, of which several are

included in the lists of threatened and endangered species.15

(d) Directions issued by this Court in judgment and order dated 6th March 2024 in the present proceedings 14. These proceedings may be understood as a continuation of

this Court’s findings and consideration, in T.N.Godavarman

(supra) which arose from an application filed by one Shri Gaurav

Kumar Bansal. After considering various reports and CEC

Reports (including the CEC Report No. 30/2022), this Court

passed the following directions on 6th March 2024:

“178.1. 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, we direct the State of Uttarakhand to relocate or establish a

15 V.B. Mathur, A.K. Nayak and N.A. Ansari, “Fourth Cycle of Management

Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of Tiger Reserves in India, 2018”. National Tiger Conservation Authority and Wildlife Institute of India, Minsitry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, p. 100.

Page 14 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 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 we are directing to be appointed would also be applicable to the existing Safaris including the Safari to be established at Pakhrau. 178.2. The 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 CEC; and (iv) an officer of the MoEF&CC not below the rank of Joint Secretary as its Member Secretary. We however clarify that the Committee would be entitled to co-opt any other authority including a representative of CZA and also take the services of the experts in the field, if found necessary. 178.3. The said Committee will: 178.3.1. recommend the measures for restoration of the damages, in the local in situ environment to its original state before the damage was caused; 178.3.2. assess the environmental damage caused in the Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) and quantify the costs for restoration; 178.3.3. identify the persons/officials responsible for such a damage. Needless to state that the State shall recover the cost so quantified from the persons/delinquent officers found

Page 15 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 responsible for the same. The cost so recovered shall be exclusively used for the purpose of restoration of the damage caused to the environment. 178.3.4. specify how the funds so collected be utilized for active restoration of ecological damage. 178.4. The aforesaid Committee, inter alia, shall consider and recommend: 178.4.1. The question as to whether Tiger Safaris shall be permitted in the buffer area or fringe area. 178.4.2. If such Safaris can be permitted, then what should be the guidelines for establishing such Safaris? 178.4.3. While considering the aforesaid aspect, the Committee shall take into consideration the following factors: a) the approach must be of ecocentrism and not of anthropocentrism; 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. Needles to state that the aforesaid factors are only some of the factors to be taken into consideration and the Committee would always be at liberty to take such other factors into consideration as it deems fit.

Page 16 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 178.4.4. The type of activities that should be permitted and prohibited 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. 178.4.5. The number and type of resorts that should be permitted within the close proximity of the protected areas. What restriction to be imposed on such resorts so that they are managed in tune with the object of protecting and maintaining the ecosystem rather than causing obstruction in the same. 178.4.6. As to within how much areas from the boundary of the protected forest there should be restriction on noise level and what should be those permissible noise levels. 178.4.7. 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. 178.4.8. The steps to be taken for scrupulously implementing such recommendations. 178.5. 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. 178.6. 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.

Page 17 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 178.7. We will consider issuing appropriate directions after the recommendations are received by this Court from the aforesaid Committee. We request the Committee to give its preliminary report within a period of three months from today. 178.8. The CBI shall submit a report to this Court within a period of three months from today. We request the learned ASG to communicate this order to the Director, CBI. 178.9. 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.”

15. Thus, pursuant to the aforesaid judgement and order dated

6th March 2024, three independent proceedings came to be

initiated viz., (a) CBI investigation; (b) disciplinary proceedings

against delinquent officers in Corbett; and (c) the Expert

Committee which was to consider various aspects detailed in

paragraphs 178.3 and 178.4 of the judgment. As mentioned

hereinabove, the present proceedings are a culmination of these

directions – specifically to consider the recommendations

Page 18 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 received from the Expert Committee, and to accordingly pass

further directions.

16. For the sake of completeness, before delving into these

recommendations, it would be relevant to refer to a short

summary of the CBI investigation carried out, so also the

disciplinary proceedings conducted against delinquent officers

in Corbett.

17. As per the judgement and order dated 6th March 2024 in

the present proceedings, the CBI submitted its status report and

the same was taken on record vide order dated 23rd July 2024.

Further, this Court granted 6 months’ time to complete the

investigation and with a view to ensure that the investigation

progresses without any delay directed the CBI to file a

subsequent status report after a period of 3 months.

Consequently, a second status report was taken on record vide

order dated 20th November 2024 and the CBI was again directed

to submit another status report after a period of 3 months. On

19th March 2025, the third status report was taken on record

and CBI was granted 3 months for filing its final report.

Page 19 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 18. After the CBI submitted its final report, this Court passed

the following order on 29th May 2025 thereby disposing of the

applications insofar as directions issued to the CBI were

concerned:

“1. This Court, vide judgment dated 06.03.2024 passed in I.A. No. 20650 of 2023 in the present proceedings 1, had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an investigation and submit a report to this Court. 2. The CBI had from time to time submitted its status report and this Court was satisfied with the progress of the investigation. 3. It is now informed that the field investigation of case is complete and the chargesheet/final report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 218, 409, 467, 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988; Section 26-1(f) & (h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927; Section 2(iv) (read with Section 3A & 3B) of the Forest Conservation Act,1980 and Sections 27(2)(a), 27(4) & 35(6) read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 has been filed against the following accused public servants, namely; (i) Shri Kishan Chand, the then Deputy Conservator of Forest/Divisional Forest Officer, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division, Lansdowne. (ii) Shri Brij Bihari Sharma, the then Forest Range Officer, Sonanadi &

Page 20 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Pakhro Range, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division, Lansdowne. (iii) Shri Rahul, the then Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar, Nainital. (iv) Shri Akhilesh Tiwari, the then Dy Conservator of Forest/Divisional Forest Officer, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division, Lansdowne. (v) Shri Mathura Singh Mavdi, Deputy Ranger, Pakhro Range, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division, Lansdowne. (vi) Shri Surendra Singh, the then Forester/Van Daroga, Pakhro Range, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division, Lansdowne. (vii) Shri Sandeep Arya, the then Forest Guard, Sonanadi Range, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division, Lansdowne. (viii) Shri Rajesh Rawat, the then Wireless Operator (Daily wages), Pakhro Range, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division, Lansdowne. 4. Since the CBI has brought the matter to its logical end, these applications shall stand disposed of insofar as the directions issued to the CBI are concerned.”

19. Next, regarding disciplinary proceedings conducted against

delinquent officers in Corbett, the State of Uttarakhand filed a

Status report pointing out various actions taken against the

officers of the Forest Department. This Court granted 3 months’

time to file further Status report on the Disciplinary proceedings.

Further, on 19th March 2025, this Court expressed its

discontentment with the pace of the disciplinary proceedings

Page 21 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 regarding the action taken against IFS officers whose dereliction

of duties resulted/contributed to the ecological damage in the

Corbett Tiger Reserve. Hence, by way of the said order, this Court

directed the State of Uttarakhand to conclude the departmental

proceedings with respect to all concerned officers within a period

of 3 months. The final report regarding the departmental

proceedings is yet to be submitted by the State of Uttarakhand.

II. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

20. Before we consider the recommendations made by the

Expert Committee, it will be relevant to refer to certain statutory

provisions of the WLP Act and the interpretation given to them

by this Court in T.N.Godavarman (supra).

21. A perusal of the sections in Chapter IV, IV-A and IV-B of

the WLP Act reveals that diverse measures have been provided

for the preservation of Protected Areas. The definition of

“protected area” as defined under sub-section (24-A) 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, 36-A and 36-C of the WLP Act.

Page 22 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 22. As per the Section 38-V of the WLP Act, a tiger reserve has

two parts namely Core and Buffer. The relevant portion of the

provision is extracted below:

“[…] 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 provision 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 the scientific and objective criteria in consultation with the concerned Gram Sabha and an Expert Committee constituted for the purpose.”

Page 23 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 23. In T.N. Godavarman (supra), this Court undertook a

detailed review of the statutory and regulatory scheme applicable

to Tiger Reserves and establishment of Tiger Safaris and

specifically held that:

“49. 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. 50. …. 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. 64. … The provisions contained in Chapter IVA lay a specific emphasis on the protection of tigers and other habitats in the tiger reserve. The provisions contained therein are in addition to the provisions contained for sanctuaries and National Parks”

(emphasis supplied)

24. Since this Court has already reviewed and considered the

vast statutory and regulatory landscape that exists relating to

Page 24 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Tiger Reserves in T.N.Godavarman (supra), reproduction or

repetition of the same would not be necessary.

III. THE EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT

25. Pursuant to the directions contained in paragraph 178.2

of the judgement dated 6th March 2024, the MoEF&CC vide its

Office Memorandum dated 15th March 2024 constituted the

Committee with the following members:

(a) Shri Chandra Prakash Goyal, Member CEC as the

Nominee of Central Empowered Committee - Member;

(b) Dr. Vaibhav C Mathur, Deputy Inspector General of

Forests, National Tiger Conservation Authority –

Member;

(c) Professor Qamar Qureshi, then Scientist G, Wildlife

Institute of India, Dehradun – Member; and

(d) Shri R Raghu Prasad, Inspector General of Forests,

Wildlife – Member Secretary.

In addition, after the first meeting, the Committee co-opted the

following two officials:

Page 25 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (e) Dr. SP Yadav, former Member Secretary, National Tiger

Conservation Authority and Interim Director General,

International Big Cat Alliance; and

(f) Dr Sanjay Shukla, then Member Secretary, CZA.

26. It can be seen from the Report of the Expert Committee that

it held meetings on various dates i.e., on 28th March 2024,

30th April 2024, 20th May 2024, 12th June 2024, and

25th June 2024. It can also be seen that Committee went for a

field visit from 30th May 2024 to 1st June 2024 to inspect the

entire area affected by different activities undertaken by the

officials of Corbett Tiger Reserve in the name of establishment of

the Pakhrau Tiger Safari. After undertaking a detailed study of

numerous reports and documents, holding meetings, and

consulting experts as well as Field Directors of various Tiger

Reserves, the Committee has made (i) specific recommendations

with respect to Corbett Tiger Reserve and (ii) general

recommendations with respect to Tiger Reserves in India, which

are considered as under:

Page 26 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (a) Recommendations with respect to Corbett Tiger Reserve

27. The Committee has made specific recommendations with

respect to Corbett Tiger Reserve, as per the terms of reference by

this Court contained in paragraph 178.3 of the judgment and

order dated 6th March 2024. These recommendations are as

follows:

27.1. Measures for restoration of the damages, in the

local in situ environment to its original state before the

damage was caused: Pursuant to the Committee consulting the

experts from the Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal

(“IIFM”), it recommended the demolition of the above-ground

structures, excavation of hard pan material, safe disposal of

debris, filling up of excavated area with soil followed by site

preparation, plantation and maintenance. The Committee in its

report states that there is a requirement to install some pipes

inside few culverts on the service road for maintaining

hydrological flows. It is recommended that Hume pipes may be

fixed up in such areas and the total costs for in-situ ecological

restoration is estimated to be Rs. 4,30,89,110 (around Rs. 4.30

Cr).

Page 27 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 27.2. To Assess the environmental damage caused in the

Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) and quantify the costs for

restoration: Based on deliberations with experts from IIFM

Bhopal, the Committee recommended that the assessment in

monetary terms, of the ecological damage for affected areas

should be confined to sites impacted by the various activities

undertaken by the forest officials for establishing a tiger safari

at Pakhrau. According to the report, the total area of ecosystem

damage is likely to be in 118.19 ha. As per the forest diversion

proposal for the safari project, though compensatory

afforestation has been proposed to address this damage, the

Committee has stated that this effort will evidently fall short in

fully capturing the benefits of the original ecosystem, but its

benefits will accrue gradually over time. The report further

states that the potential ecological loss from safari project

activities in affected areas is assessed in monetary terms as Rs.

22,95,06,306 (around Rs. 23 Cr) with conceivable net market

value of felled timber as Rs. 6.80 Cr. Therefore, according to the

Committee the total damage costs are estimated to be about

Rs. 29.8 Cr.

Page 28 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 27.3. On identifying the persons/officials responsible

for such a damage, with the consequent direction that the

State will recover the costs so quantified from the

delinquent officer found responsible and use it exclusively

towards restoration of the damage caused by the

environment: As the CBI is effectively investigating the issue,

the Committee deemed it fit to not assess the same issue, to

avoid overlapping of responses.

27.4. On how the funds so collected be utilized for active

restoration of ecological damage: Upon assessment of the

environment damage and quantification of the costs towards

ecological restoration supported by 2 experts from IIFM Bhopal,

the Committee has stated that the amount so collected for

restorations has to be deposited in a separate account

maintained by the Field Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve and the

State shall file annual compliance report with the CEC along

with data which is to be uploaded on the relevant dashboard of

the CEC.

(b) General Recommendations 28. We will now consider the various general recommendations

made by the Expert Committee, in accordance with the scope set

Page 29 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 out by this Court in paragraph 178.4 of its judgment dated 6th

March 2024.

29. On whether Tiger Safaris shall be permitted in the

buffer area or fringe area

29.1. The Committee in its Report has differentiated the

diversity of wildlife tourism experiences with encountering

animals in their natural habitats and animals in controlled

environments (i.e., zoos where human intervention maintains

the surroundings), each shaped by varying degrees of natural

authenticity and human influence. The Committee after

considering the Gazette notification dated 15th October 2012, the

minutes of ninth meeting of NTCA dated 19th June 2013,

Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safari in Buffer and Fringe Areas

of Tiger Reserves issued by NTCA in November 2019, and

provisions of Section 38-V of the WLP Act, has arrived at certain

conclusions. The Committee has traced the intention of the

Government of India and the NTCA, to establish Tiger Safari in

the buffer or fringe areas. While doing so, tiger dispersal routes

must be avoided in all circumstances, as stated in the

Guidelines. It is categorically stated that a forest area in the

buffer zone, would definitely be a part of such dispersal routes

Page 30 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 of tigers and other wildlife. The Committee also found that the

density of tigers in forests under buffer area, is in fact quite high.

29.2. Based on these findings, the Expert Committee has

made certain recommendations: that as per the proviso to

Section 33(a), Explanation (ii) of Section 38-V(4) the WLP Act,

and the judgment and order dated 6th March 2024, Tiger Safaris

should be strictly prohibited in core or critical tiger habitat areas.

It further recommended that any Tiger Safari may only be set up

on non-forest land or degraded forest land within the buffer,

provided these locations do not form part of a tiger corridor. The

Committee also emphasized that the establishment of a Tiger

Safari shall be permitted solely in conjunction with a fully

operational rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers,

specifically designed to care for conflict, injured, or abandoned

animals.

30. Guidelines for Tiger Safaris

30.1. Since the Expert Committee has recommended that

Tiger Safaris may continue, in the buffer and fringe areas, it has

also evolved guidelines accordingly.

30.2. In its Report, the Committee states that the

‘Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safari in Buffer and Fringe

Page 31 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Areas of Tiger Reserves 2019’ issued by the NTCA should form

the basis for any establishment of Tiger Safaris. The directions

of this Court in T.N.Godavarman (supra) with regard to

sourcing of animals should be strictly adhered to. Specifically,

the Committee recommended that only animals rescued from the

Tiger Reserve or the same landscape, particularly conflict

animals, should be housed in the Safaris. The committee has

advised that a rescue centre, integrated with each Tiger Safari,

should provide essential veterinary support and facilitate the

treatment and care of such animals. The management of each

Safari is to remain under the control of the Field Director of the

concerned reserve with supervision from the Chief Wildlife

Warden. Financial earnings from the Safari should be directed

back into the Tiger Conservation Foundations. The Committee

further stressed the importance of design measures to prevent

any contact between wild and captive populations, mandated

approval for enclosure designs by the CZA and called for the

development of carrying capacity norms. Environmentally

friendly vehicle options like solar, hybrid, or electric vehicles are

to be promoted and their numbers regulated, and a strict policy

Page 32 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 of zero discharge of waste water from the Safari must be

enforced.

31. Permissible and prohibited activities in the buffer and

fringe areas of the Tiger Reserve

31.1. The Committee outlined a detailed set of prohibited

and regulated activities for buffer and fringe zones of Tiger

Reserves. Prohibited activities include commercial mining,

establishing sawmills, polluting industries, commercial firewood

use for businesses, major hydroelectric projects, introduction of

exotic species, use or production of hazardous substances, low-

flying tourism aircraft (including drones, which must fly at least

300 meters above obstacles), discharge of waste into natural

habitats and unauthorized felling of trees. On the other hand, it

specified that regulated activities could include the

establishment of hotels and resorts as per approved tourism

plans that accommodate wildlife movement, commercial use and

harvesting of natural water resources by master plan, fencing

premises of hotels and lodges, widening roads, permitting

vehicular movement at night and protective measures for hill

slopes and river banks in keeping with plans.

Page 33 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 31.2. Additionally, the Committee recommended that the

TCP should clearly define zones within the buffer area where new

tourism infrastructure may be developed, considering factors

like road access, village proximity and animal corridors. It has

suggested that all new tourism infrastructure must comply with

Eco-sensitive Zone notifications under the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986. It further recommended that eco-friendly

tourism facilities could be allowed on non-forest land within

buffer zones and such zones must be clearly delineated as part

of the TCP and the zonal Master Plan for Eco-sensitive Zones

(hereinafter referred to as “ESZ”).

32. Whether resorts can be permitted within the close

proximity of protected areas and restrictions thereof

32.1. The Committee expressed concern that ecotourism in

many tiger reserves continues to resemble mass tourism and

lacks adequate regulation, despite the Supreme Court’s directive

in Ajay Dubey v. National Tiger Conservation Authority16

that tourism activities in core and critical tiger reserve areas

must adhere strictly to NTCA Guidelines.

16 (2019) 11 SCC 538

Page 34 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 32.2. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that new

eco-friendly resorts may be permitted within buffer zones but

must be strictly prohibited in identified tiger corridors. It further

encouraged the promotion of homestays and community-

managed establishments, coupled with incentives to support

such initiatives. To mitigate environmental impact, zero waste

practices were mandated as compulsory. The Committee also

advocated for the entire Tiger Reserve and its corresponding ESZ

to be designated as “Silence Zones” under the Noise Pollution

(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and prohibited the use of

mobile phones within tourism zones of core habitats to minimize

disturbance to wildlife. Strict enforcement of vehicular carrying

capacity limits as prescribed by NTCA was emphasized,

alongside a complete phase-out of night stay facilities for tourists

in core areas and an outright ban on night tourism. Additionally,

for reserves where roads cut through core or critical tiger

habitats, stringent night-time traffic restrictions were

recommended, permitting only emergency and ambulance

vehicles to operate from dusk to dawn.

Page 35 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 33. Permissible noise levels and the distance from the

boundary of the protected forest for which restrictions on

noise level will be applicable

33.1. The Committee reiterated its recommendation that

the entire Tiger Reserve, along with the ESZ of the protected

areas included within it, should be notified as a ‘Silence Zone’

under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

In situations where the ESZ of the Tiger Reserve has not yet been

officially notified, the proposed ESZ should be considered for this

designation. Furthermore, if neither a notified nor a proposed

ESZ exists, a default ESZ should be applied to ensure

appropriate restrictions on noise levels around the protected

forest boundaries.

34. Measures for effective management of Tiger Reserves,

on a pan-India basis

34.1. Strict Regulatory Regime: The Committee

recommended that States should be directed to prepare TCPs

within the six months. It has suggested that financial assistance

under the Project Tiger component of the Central Scheme for

Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats (hereinafter referred

to as “CSS-IDWH”) should be mandatorily linked to an approved

Page 36 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 TCP to ensure effective resource utilization. Forest areas situated

in buffer and corridor regions identified within the TCP should

be managed in alignment with the plan to maintain consistency

between forestry operations and wildlife conservation priorities.

Forestry operations in buffer forest lands ought to be integrated

into the TCP through consultations with the State Forest

Department’s working plans. The Committee highlighted that

Critical Tiger Habitats notified under the WLP Act, should be

accorded equivalence with Critical Wildlife Habitats as defined

by the Forest Rights Act, recognizing both scientific and

ecological significance alongside traditional forest dwellers’

rights. It recommended that tiger carrying capacity be calculated

as per existing norms within the TCP to guide habitat

interventions effectively. Furthermore, while Compensatory

Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority

(hereinafter referred to as “CAMPA”) funds may continue to

support voluntary village relocation, it was suggested that

dedicated funding should be earmarked specifically to uphold

inviolate core and critical tiger habitats, extending financial

assistance also to villages in buffer zones and tiger dispersal

routes.

Page 37 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 34.2. Proper Human Resource Management: The

Committee advised that States should prioritize filling vacancies

at all levels within tiger reserves, identifying this as a critical

factor limiting protection and scientific efforts. It proposed

establishing separate cadres for veterinarians and wildlife

biologists to provide the technical expertise needed for the

expanded scientific mandate of tiger conservation. Additionally,

a cadre of sociologists could be formed to engage continuously

with fringe communities, fostering a social fence to support

conservation goals. The Committee underlined the importance of

ongoing capacity building for forest frontline staff, supported by

financial assistance as mandated by relevant legislation. It

emphasized focusing on emerging thematic areas such as

rewilding orphaned or habituated tigers, scientific habitat

management and strict adherence to NTCA Standard Operating

Procedures and guidelines. To attract and retain personnel in

tiger reserves, incremental increases in project and ration

allowances indexed to Dearness Allowance and aligned with

paramilitary force rates are suggested. Ex-gratia payments on

par with paramilitary forces is recommended to be provided in

the event of death in the line of duty. Infrastructure at guard

Page 38 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 camps should include essential amenities such as clean water,

safe housing, sanitary facilities, communication tools and first

aid, with separate provisions for female staff. Family

accommodation consistent with standards for defence and police

personnel in remote postings should be adequately provided,

with enhanced central government support suggested for

establishing residential accommodations and field hostels. Given

the hazardous conditions, insurance coverage for all field

personnel, including contractual and daily wage workers, was

recommended, along with mandatory enrolment in government

health schemes and consideration of free medical care for

injured staff. The Committee also suggested recognition through

state awards and family support equivalent to those granted to

civil police personnel for employees who lose their lives in

service.

34.3. Timely And Adequate Funding Support: The

Committee underscored the necessity of timely and sufficient

funding for effective management of tiger reserves, cautioning

that delays impede conservation efforts and adversely affect the

numerous casual workers employed in these reserves. It

recommended a comprehensive overhaul of fund release

Page 39 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 mechanisms, allowing Tiger Conservation Foundations to receive

financial assistance directly under the Project Tiger component

of the CSS-IDWH. Revenue generated by tiger reserves should be

reinvested into their respective Tiger Conservation Foundations

to address management issues within the reserves and their

zones of influence.

34.4. Provisions of Arms to Forest Officials And Staff:

The Committee proposed that firearms be provided to all forest

officers from Beat Guard to Forester level on a phased basis,

targeting 50% coverage within three years and 75% within five

years. The selection of firearms should reflect local threat

assessments and be comparable to police forces operating in the

same region. Deputy Rangers and Range Officers were

recommended to receive pistols or revolvers similar to those

issued to police officers of corresponding ranks. Licensing

requirements should be waived for the firearms assigned to

forest personnel. Detailed operational guidelines for firearm use

should be established by states, coupled with legal immunity for

personnel under relevant national security legislation. The

Committee further suggested that states should consider raising

specialized Forest Battalions deployed under the operational

Page 40 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 command of Forest Officers, potentially drawn from police units

and provided with advanced jungle warfare training to reinforce

forest department capabilities.

34.5. Strengthening Forest & Wildlife Crime Prevention

And Investigation: It is recommended that the Wildlife Crime

Control Bureau, Field Directors of Tiger Reserves, and Chief

Wildlife Wardens be empowered to access Call Detail Records

(CDRs) and conduct surveillance investigations related to forest

and wildlife offences, acknowledging that only a few states

currently have this provision. The Committee urged the

establishment of dedicated Wildlife Crime Cells and Special

Prosecution Wings within forest departments across all states,

modelled after successful frameworks such as Madhya Pradesh’s

Special Task Force. Enhancing collaboration between police and

forest departments is encouraged along with the creation and

adequate funding of Special Tiger Protection Forces in sensitive

tiger reserves. The development and mandatory enforcement of

Standard Operating Procedures for forensic involvement in

wildlife crimes by state Forensic Science Laboratories was also

proposed.

Page 41 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 34.6. Setting Up Fast Track Courts/Benches For Forest

& Wildlife Crimes: To ensure expeditious justice, the

Committee recommended establishing fast track or dedicated

courts specifically tasked with forest and wildlife crime cases.

34.7. Proper Human-Wildlife Conflict Management: The

Committee suggested that states should implement inclusive

and efficient compensation policies addressing crop damage and

loss of human and livestock life. It recommended for enhanced

coordination among various agencies, with clear delineation of

responsibilities, to reduce response times for human-wildlife

conflict incidents. The designation of human-wildlife conflict as

a ‘natural disaster’, as done by some states, was encouraged for

wider adoption. Additionally, states were directed to provide ex-

gratia payments as per established governmental guidelines. The

Committee proposed the creation of a centrally trained and

equipped rapid response force termed as ‘Green Commandos’

capable of wildlife rescue operations and immediate deployment

nationwide through a centralized command and control centre,

maintained in a constant state of readiness through ongoing

training.

Page 42 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 34.8. Green Infrastructure Development: While

acknowledging the need for infrastructure development, the

Committee emphasized avoidance strategies in wildlife-bearing

forests as the primary mitigation measure. It called for the

uploading of comprehensive information on tiger reserves,

corridors, protected areas, and ESZs onto the Central

Government’s ‘Gati Shakti’ portal. Strict adherence to mitigation

measures prescribed by relevant authorities, including the

Wildlife Institute of India, the NTCA, and the National Board of

Wildlife, was recommended for all development activities,

including linear infrastructure projects. For transmission lines

traversing tiger reserves, insulated cables, bunch cabling or

underground laying should be employed wherever technically

feasible to minimize wildlife disturbance.

34.9. Regulation of Religious Tourism: The Committee

recognized the significant influx of pilgrims at places of worship

within some tiger reserves and recommended strict regulation of

pilgrimage activities. It recommended that the government

should facilitate eco-friendly, multi-seater vehicles or buses to

transport devotees, minimizing environmental impact in a

phased manner. The exploration of alternative transport modes

Page 43 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 such as ropeways, skywalks and tunnels was also encouraged to

accommodate sustainable pilgrimage access.

35. Steps to be taken for scrupulously implementing these

recommendations

35.1. Lastly, in compliance with this Court’s direction (in

paragraph 178.4.8), the Committee has also made various

suggestions for measures to ensure effective implementation of

these recommendations, and the consequent directions that this

Court will pass. These can be broadly categorised as follows:

35.2. Statutory Requirements: In its report, the

Committee recommends that all States be directed to notify the

core and buffer areas of their Tiger Reserves, emphasizing that

such delineation is essential for implementing a landscape

approach to tiger conservation and managing tiger land tenure

dynamics. The Committee notes that while 23 TCPs are currently

in effect and 25 are under revision, several States are yet to

submit their Plans and suggests that all States must prepare or

update their TCPs within three months. To enhance governance,

the Committee suggests the constitution of a Steering Committee

at each Tiger Reserve, comprising the Chief Minister as

Chairperson, the Minister in-charge of Wildlife as Vice-

Page 44 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Chairperson, officials including field directors, representatives

from tribal affairs, wildlife experts with tribal development

experience, members of the Tribal Advisory Council,

representatives from Panchayati Raj and Social Justice

departments and the Chief Wildlife Warden as Member

Secretary. Recognizing that such committees seldom convene

despite being constituted, the Committee advises that these

bodies be established in all reserves within three months and

mandatorily meet at least twice a year. The Committee further

suggests strict adherence to NTCA guidelines on tourism,

including a complete ban on night tourism and fostering

primarily community-based tourism around reserves.

35.3. Human Resource Development: The Committee

advises strict prohibition on outsourcing forest staff officers and

recommends that the MoEF&CC consult the Central Empowered

Committee to fill vacancies in all Tiger Reserves within three

months. It highlights the need for wildlife-trained officers and

suggests that States consult the NTCA before appointing Field

Directors to ensure no such positions remain vacant. To

incentivize postings in remote areas, the Committee proposes

considering military-style benefits such as retaining government

Page 45 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 accommodation in chosen locations and instituting medals for

exemplary service, which may boost morale and loyalty among

frontline staff who often maintain multiple residences. The

report also identifies the need for upgrading existing anti-

poaching infrastructure to provide adequate amenities and

suggests permanent secondment of technically qualified officers

to institutional bodies for periodic supervision. Continuous

capacity-building programs for all staff and officials are

recommended to maintain operational proficiency.

35.4. The Financial Conundrum: The Committee

recommends enhancing resource inputs for Tiger Conservation

Foundations by encouraging States to increase tourism tariffs

substantially to align with low-volume, high-value eco-tourism,

enabling concessional rates for local communities and school

children. It suggested exploring the feasibility of promoting

responsible tourism in buffer areas and developing alternate,

less environmentally damaging tourism forms like nature walks

and treks. The Committee also proposes the levying of

conservation fees on accommodation facilities based on bed

count or a percentage of accommodation fees, as well as

environmental fees on vehicles entering ESZs. Furthermore, the

Page 46 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Committee encourages NTCA and States to collaborate on

evaluating ecosystem services provided by reserves, establishing

mechanisms to charge downstream beneficiaries, and equitably

sharing resultant revenues between reserve authorities and local

communities.

35.5. The Development Paradigm: The Committee

stresses that core and critical tiger habitat areas should be kept

inviolate under all circumstances with no projects detrimental to

nature permitted. It highlights the critical need for security

forces operating in tiger reserves near international boundaries

to avoid establishing permanent infrastructure within core areas

which could cause ongoing disturbance due to troop movements

and logistics.

35.6. Other Suggestions: To prevent overcrowding at tiger

sighting locations, the Committee suggests mandating GPS

tracking devices on all tourist vehicles and imposing stringent

penalties on vehicles arriving beyond the first two at sighting

spots. It recommends regular training and capacity-building for

tourist vehicle drivers and guides to ensure responsible

behaviour within reserves. The Committee advises fixing the

boundaries and access routes of religious sites within reserves

Page 47 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 as they existed at the time of reserve notification, prohibiting new

construction including temporary structures. Pilgrim travel

should be restricted to CNG or electric vehicles, with pedestrian

access disallowed. Managing committees for such religious sites

might include the Field Director, District Collector, and

Superintendent of Police as special invitees whose roles should

be limited to protection without involvement in daily temple

operations. Finally, the Committee suggests prohibiting cooking

during mass feasts inside reserves to prevent illegal fuelwood

collection while allowing prasad to be prepared on solar-powered

electric stoves in small quantities within temple premises.

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

36. We have extensively considered the diverse and

comprehensive Report submitted by the Expert Committee with

regards to both Corbett Tiger Reserve and the general

recommendations to be implemented with regards to Tiger

Safaris and Tiger Reserves.

37. Previously in T.N.Godavarman (supra), we were mindful of

the importance of employing the principle of restitution, which

in the context of the environment translates to prioritising

Page 48 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 ecological restoration. Reference was made to Article 8 of the

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, to which India is a

signatory and also various decisions17 of the Permanent Court of

International Justice (PCIJ), that laid down the standard in

international law for reparations, which was thereafter extended

to restoration of degraded ecosystems.

38. Adopting a restitutive approach has in fact been statutorily

mandated under Section 15(4) of the National Green Tribunals

Act, 2010 where the Tribunal is directed to provide relief

regarding “restitution of the damaged property or environment”.

This statutory duty of the Courts also flows from Article 21, 48A

and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Each of these Articles

highlight the importance of the environment in our

constitutional scheme. As per the Constitution, it is our bounden

duty, “to protect and improve the natural environment including

forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for

living creatures.”

17 The Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), 13 September 1928, PCIJ,

Merits, p. 47) and Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, Compensation Judgment, (2018) I.C.J. Reports 15.

Page 49 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 39. This Court has also recognised this principle in Indian

Council for Enviro-Legal Action & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors.18 and S. Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors.19 These

cases were relied upon in Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare

Society v. State of Rajasthan20 [to which one of us, Gavai, J.

(as he then was) was a member] where it was held as follows:

“19. …. Compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to the value of illegally-mined minerals. The cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of the compensation. The “polluter pays” principle as interpreted by this Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of “sustainable development” and as such the polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.”

40. In T.N. Godavarman (supra) itself, it was held that:

“173. It could thus be seen that, worldwide as well as in our jurisprudence, the law has developed and evolved emphasizing on the restoration of the damaged ecological

18 (1996) 3 SCC 212: 1996 INSC 237 (Para 60 and 66). 19 (1997) 2 SCC 87: 1996 INSC 1466 (Para 49). 20 (2022) 16 SCC 581

Page 50 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 system. A reversal of environmental damage in conformity with the principle under Article 8(f) of the CBD is what is required. At times, the compensatory afforestation permits forestation at some other site. However, the principle of restoration of damaged ecosystem would require the States to promote the recovery of threatened species. We are of the considered view that the States would be required to take steps for the identification and effective implementation of active restoration measures that are localized to the particular ecosystem that was damaged. The focus has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar as possible to the specific one that was damaged.”

41. While considering each individual head of

recommendations made by the Expert Committee, it will be

apposite to refer to paragraph 178.4.3 specifically, which laid

out the factors that must be considered in the Committee’s

recommendations, as they are relevant and serve as guiding

principles for this Court to follow as well:

“178.4.3. While considering the aforesaid aspect, the Committee shall take into consideration the following factors:

a) the approach must be of ecocentrism and not of anthropocentrism;

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,

Page 51 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 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.

Needles to state that the aforesaid factors are only some of the factors to be taken into consideration and the Committee would always be at liberty to take such other factors into consideration as it deems fit.”

42. It is this Court’s duty, therefore, in light of our

constitutional scheme and international obligations, to adopt

restorative measures that ensure environmental degradation is

firstly mitigated and then reversed and restored to its original

form, while also prioritising mitigation of future risk to the

environment.

V. CONCLUSION

43. In light of the recommendations made by the Expert

Committee, the restitutive approach elaborated hereinabove and

the earlier judgment of this Court dated 6th March 2024, we

deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in

continuation of our earlier orders:

Page 52 of 80

Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

44. In relation to Corbett Tiger Reserve

With regards Corbett Tiger Reserve, we find it appropriate to

accept the Committee’s recommendations.

44.1. The State of Uttarakhand through the Chief Wildlife

Warden, Uttarakhand, in consultation with the CEC, is directed

to:

44.1.1. Submit a plan for the restoration of the Corbett Tiger

Reserve in line with the recommendations made by the Expert

Committee, within a period of 2 months;

44.1.2. Begin all clearing/demolition of unauthorised

construction as identified by the Expert Committee, before the

lapse of 3 months from the date of this judgment; and

44.1.3. File a compliance affidavit within a period of 1 year

from the date of this judgment.

44.1.4. In relation to Corbett Tiger Reserve, the CEC will

monitor and supervise the implementation of the ecological

restoration plan developed by the State of Uttarakhand. While

developing and implementing this plan and carrying out

afforestation, the State of Uttarakhand must ensure that only

Page 53 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 native and indigenous species are identified, with special care to

not introduce any alien species to the ecosystem.

44.2. With regards to quantification of costs for restoration,

the Committee arrived at a figure of Rs. 4,30,89,110/- as costs

for in-situ ecological restoration. The Committee separately

assessed the potential ecological loss from safari project

activities in monetary terms to be Rs. 22,95,06,306/- with

conceivable net market value of felled timber as Rs.

6,80,00,000/-. Therefore, according to the Committee, the total

damage costs are estimated to be about Rs. 29,80,00,000/-.

44.3. We extensively heard this matter on 30th May 2025.

However, when it was noticed that the aforesaid quantification

of the Committee would adversely affect the State of

Uttarakhand, we re-listed the matter on 14th November 2025 and

heard Shri Abhishek Attrey, learned standing counsel for the

State of Uttarakhand.

44.4. Shri Attrey vehemently objected to the quantification

of Rs. 29,80,00,000/-. It is submitted by Shri Attrey that the

number of trees estimated to be felled as per the FSI report is

6093 and number of trees felled as per record of DFO is 3620,

however, the IIFM picked the numbers given by FSI. He,

Page 54 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 therefore, submitted that the aforesaid amount has been

assessed without there being any foundation for the same.

44.5. We are, however, not inclined to go into the issue with

regard to valuation of quantification of costs for restoration as

well as the potential ecological loss caused from the Safari

project. We are also not inclined to go into the issue with regard

to number of trees felled since trial and the prosecution at the

instance of CBI is pending. Rather, we find that it will be in the

interest of justice that the State of Uttarakhand is directed to

restore the ecological damage caused to the Corbett Tiger

Reserve under the supervision, guidance and control of the CEC.

Needless to say that the Field Director shall periodically report

to the CEC with regard to the restoration and the restoration

work would be carried to the satisfaction of the CEC.

44.6. Also, as per the earlier judgment dated 6th March 2024

in T.N. Godavarman (supra), after the completion of

disciplinary proceedings, proportionate amounts towards the

costs may be recovered by the State of Uttarakhand from the

errant officers.

Page 55 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

45. On whether tiger safaris shall be permitted in the buffer

and fringe areas

The Committee’s findings and recommendations on this aspect,

are also accepted:

45.1. In terms of the proviso to Section 33(a) and the

provisions contained in the Explanation (ii) of sub-section 4 of

Section 38-V of the WLP Act and the judgement of this Court in

T.N. Godavarman (supra), it is categorically held that Tiger

Safari shall not be permitted in the core or a critical tiger habitat

area.

45.2. Tiger Safari shall be established on ‘non-forest land’

or ‘degraded forest land’ in buffer area provided that is not part

of a tiger corridor.

45.3. Tiger Safari shall be allowed only in association with

a full-fledged rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers where

conflict animals, injured animals or abandoned animals are

housed for care and rehabilitation.

45.4. These Tiger Safaris shall be subject to the conditions

and restrictions mentioned in the Report of the Expert

Committee, and as described in the following paragraph.

Page 56 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

46. Guidelines for Tiger Safaris

46.1. We accept the Committee’s recommendations with

regards to Guidelines for Tiger Safaris and direct that they may

be established and run with due consideration of the

‘Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safari in Buffer and Fringe

Areas of Tiger Reserves 2019’ issued by the NTCA with the

following additional requirements:

46.1.1. The directions of this Court in T.N. Godavarman

(supra) with regard to sourcing of animals shall be strictly

adhered to;

46.1.2. Only animals rescued and/or conflict animals from

the Tiger Reserve or from the same landscape should be housed

in the Tiger Safaris;

46.1.3. Rescue Centre to be established in conjunction with

such Tiger Safari shall provide essential veterinary support to

such facility and help in treatment/care of captured animals;

46.1.4. Tiger Safari should be under the management control

of the Field Director of the concerned Tiger Reserve with

supervision of the Chief Wildlife Warden;

46.1.5. Earnings should be ploughed back through the

concerned Tiger Conservation Foundations;

Page 57 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 46.1.6. Design considerations should be such that there is no

scope for interaction between in-situ and ex-situ populations;

46.1.7. Enclosure design must be approved by the CZA;

46.1.8. Carrying capacity norms should be developed;

46.1.9. Solar/Hybrid/Electric vehicles to be promoted and

number of vehicles also must be regulated; and

46.1.10. Strict Zero Discharge of waste water to be permitted

from safaris.

47. Permissible and prohibited activities in the buffer and

fringe areas of the Tiger Reserve

47.1. Notifying ESZ for Tiger Reserves

47.1.1. Insofar as other protected areas are concerned in

Sanctuaries and National Parks, there exists the concept of Eco-

Sensitive Zones (ESZs) as per the 2011 Notification. The letter

dated 23rd April, 2018 (F.No.15-22/2013-NTCA) issued by the

MoEF&CC to the Chief Wildlife Wardens regarding submission

of proposal for notifying ESZ of Tiger Reserves, specifically

contemplates that the extent of the eco-sensitive zone for the

critical habitat of Tiger Reserves, will at the minimum, include

the buffer and fringe areas. The letter is extracted below:

Page 58 of 80

Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 “Sub: Submission of proposal for notifying Eco Sensitive Zones of Tiger Reserve Sir, Reference is invited to the subject cited above. In this context, I am directed to request you to kindly furnish proposal for notifying Eco Sensitive Zones around Tiger Reserves, as per list enclosed herewith, as per advisory issued by this Authority in the matter which states:

1. The entire buffer zone should be included in the Eco Sensitive Zone

2. A radial cushion of minimum 1 km should be kept from the critical tiger habitat wherever the buffer is disjunct/absent

3. Where a Protected Area forms part of the buffer, then a minimum 1 km cushion should be demarcated around the said buffer also.”

47.1.2. We find strength in the rationale of this letter, that the

very minimum protection that buffer zones are entitled to, is that

which is afforded to the environment in ESZs. The letter appears

to be in the spirit of the concept of ESZs, taking forward the

culture of conservation, and therefore, we approve the same. It

follows as a natural corollary that insofar as the buffer zone of a

critical tiger habitat or the buffer zone of the Tiger Reserve is

concerned, the same restrictions as envisaged in the Notification

dated 09.02.2011 will apply.

Page 59 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 47.1.3. We were informed during the proceedings, that not all

Tiger Reserves have notified ESZs. We are of the firm belief that

ESZs cannot only be restricted to Sanctuaries or National Parks,

and must include buffer and peripheral areas of Tiger Reserves

as well. Therefore, all State Governments are hereby directed to

notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves, including buffer and

fringe areas, no later than 1 year from the date of this judgment.

47.1.4. The formulation of ESZs for these Tiger Reserves will

abide by the letter dated 23rd April 2018 issued by the MoEF&CC

which clarifies that the minimum area comprised in the ESZs

will be the buffer or fringe area of the Tiger Reserve. These ESZs

will be accorded the same safeguards provided in the Notification

dated 9th February 2011, issued by the MoEF&CC, at the

minimum. Therefore, activities that are permitted inside these

ESZs for Tiger Reserves, will be the same as activities which are

governed under the said Notification.

47.1.5. It is specifically clarified by way of this direction that

these notified ESZs will be subject to all the same restrictions as

per the Notification dated 09.02.2011, including the restriction

that within a distance of 1 km from a Tiger Habitat or buffer area,

Page 60 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 or the notified ESZ (whichever is larger), there will be a complete

ban on mining activities.

47.2. Permitted and regulated activities:

In addition to the conditions with regard to areas notified as ESZ

which would be applicable to the buffer or fringe areas of Tiger

Reserves, we also accept the recommendations of the Committee

as to what activities shall be permitted, regulated and prohibited

in the aforesaid areas. We direct the State Governments to take

into consideration these recommendations while framing the

required statutory or regulatory framework. The prohibited and

regulated activities are summarized below:

47.2.1. Prohibited activities:

(i) Commercial mining.

(ii) Setting of saw mills.

(iii) Setting of industries causing pollution (water, air, soil,

noise, etc.).

(iv) Commercial use of firewood for hotels and other

business related establishment.

(v) Establishment of major hydroelectric projects.

(vi) Introduction of exotic species.

(vii) Use of production of any hazardous substances.

Page 61 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

(viii) Undertaking activities related to tourism like over-

flying the tiger reserves by low flying aircraft (including

drones and hot air balloons). The minimum height of

any aircraft shall be at a level which is at least 300m

(1000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km

of the estimated position of the aircraft.

(ix) Discharge of effluents and solid waste in natural water

bodies or terrestrial area.

(x) Felling of trees without permission from appropriate

authority.

47.2.2. Regulated activities:

(i) Establishment of hotels and resorts as per approved

Tourism prescriptions of Buffer component of the TCP,

which takes care of habitats allowing no restriction on

movement of wild animals.

(ii) Commercial use of natural water resources including

ground water harvesting. As per approved master plan,

which takes care of habitats allowing no restriction on

movement of wild animals.

(iii) Fencing of premises of hotels and lodges.

(iv) Widening of roads.

Page 62 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (v) Movement of vehicular traffic at night.

(vi) Protection of hill slopes and river banks as per the

master plan.

47.2.3. Other recommendations on permissible and

prohibited activities:

(i) Tiger Conservation Plan should clearly delineate zones

within the buffer areas where new tourism

infrastructure may be developed considering road

accessibility, proximity to village habitations, animal

corridors, etc.

(ii) Development of tourism infrastructure in buffer zones

should be regulated in accordance with the ESZ

notifications issued under the Environment

(Protection) Act 1986.

(iii) Eco friendly tourism facility and infrastructure can be

allowed on non-forest land in buffer area of Tiger

Reserve.

(iv) Tourism infrastructure zone should be marked and

delineated in the buffer area and such tourism zone

should be part of Tiger Conservation Plan and Zonal

Master plan of Eco sensitive zone.

Page 63 of 80

Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

48. Whether resorts can be permitted within the close

proximity of protected areas and restrictions thereof

With regard to permissibility of the resorts within the close

proximity of the protected areas and if permitted, the restrictions

to be imposed, we accept the recommendations of the

Committee. We, therefore, issue the following directions in that

regard:

48.1. Ecotourism cannot resemble mass tourism and must

be adequately regulated and adhere strictly to NTCA Guidelines;

48.2. New eco-friendly resorts may be allowed in buffer but

shall not be allowed in an identified corridor;

48.3. Homestays and community-managed establishments

should be encouraged and incentives should also be given to

them;

48.4. Zero waste practices should be made mandatory;

48.5. Use of mobile phones within tourism zones of the core

habitat of tiger reserves should not be permitted;

48.6. Vehicular carrying capacity as prescribed in the NTCA

guidelines needs to be calculated and strictly enforced;

48.7. Complete ban on night tourism must be implemented;

Page 64 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 48.8. In those tiger reserves where roads traverse the

core/critical tiger habitat, strict night regulation (no traffic from

dusk to dawn except ambulances/emergency) needs to be

exercised.

49. Permissible noise levels and the distance from the

boundary of the protected forest for which restrictions on

noise level will be applicable

With regard to the permissible noise level and the distance from

the boundary of the protected forests wherein restrictions on

noise would be applicable, the recommendations of the

Committee are accepted by us. We, therefore, issue the following

directions:

49.1. The entire area of the Tiger Reserve (including ESZs of

the Protected Areas) shall be notified as “Silence Zone” under the

Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, within 3

months from the date of this judgment. Further, the authorities

of Tiger Reserve would be empowered to enforce the regulation

of maintaining silence zone and acting under relevant statutes.

49.2. The Central Government, or as the case may be, the

State Government shall also consider declaring that all Protected

Areas of the State and their ESZs notified as Forests under the

Page 65 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Indian Forest Act, 1927 and respective State Forest Acts, as

Silence Zones with similar norms as above.

50. Measures for effective management of Tiger Reserves,

on a pan-India basis, and steps to be taken for scrupulously

implementing these directions:

The Committee recommended certain measures to be applied on

a pan-India basis for the effective management and protection of

Tiger Reserves, and further, various steps to ensure

implementation of these measures. After considering their

detailed recommendations, we see merit in combining the

recommendations made by the Committee with regard to the

above two headings and accept them as follows, with

modifications where found necessary.

50.1. Statutory Requirements:

50.1.1. Delineation of core and buffer areas: Notifying

buffer areas is imperative for tiger land tenure dynamics to

operate in a landscape and to effectively implement the

landscape approach to conservation. Hence, all the States are

hereby directed to notify the buffer and core areas of the Tiger

Reserves within 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Page 66 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 50.1.2. Preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan: In light of

the findings of the Expert Committee that TCPs are not uniformly

in place, all States are hereby directed to prepare a Tiger

Conservation Plan within a period of 3 months from the date of

this judgment.

50.1.3. Steering Committees: Since the Committee found

that Steering Committees in many States have not framed TCPs

and are not meeting regularly, it is, therefore, directed that

Steering Committee if not yet constituted for each Tiger Reserve,

shall be done so within 2 months from the date of this judgment.

50.1.4. We further direct the NTCA to monitor the issue as to

whether the TCPs have been put in place or not and whether the

Steering Committees have been meeting on a regular basis or

not. It is directed that the Steering Committees shall hold at least

two meetings in a year.

50.1.5. Adherence to the NTCA guidelines on tourism: We

direct that all States must adhere to the NTCA guidelines on

tourism, thus adopting the overarching aim for regulation to

move towards a system of community-based tourism around

Tiger Reserves. Its prescription against night tourism in entirety,

is also hereby approved.

Page 67 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 50.2. Strict Regulatory Regime:

50.2.1. All the States are directed to prepare Tiger

Conservation Plan (TCP) within a period of 6 months from the

date of this judgment;

50.2.2. Financial assistance under the Project Tiger

component of the CSS-IDWH should be mandatorily linked to an

approved Tiger conservation plan;

50.2.3. Forest areas in buffer and corridor regions identified

in the TCP should be managed as per the TCP to ensure harmony

of forestry operations vis-à-vis wildlife concerns;

50.2.4. Forestry operations in forest lands forming part of the

buffer areas should be incorporated in TCP in consultation with

working plan of the State Forest Department;

50.2.5. Critical Tiger Habitat notified under Section 38-V(4)(i)

of the WLP Act should be treated at equivalence with Critical

Wildlife Habitats as per Section 2(b) of the Scheduled Tribes and

other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)

Act 2006, as both are decided on scientific principles and

ecological importance with due recognition of rights of tribals

and forest dwellers;

Page 68 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 50.2.6. TCP should also have the tiger carrying capacity

calculated as per extant norms, based on which habitat

interventions should be decided;

50.2.7. While continuing the use of CAMPA funds for

voluntary village relocation, dedicated funds should be

earmarked for this activity to ensure an inviolate core/critical

tiger habitat. Voluntary village relocation should also be

financially assisted in areas of other strategic ecological value

such as villages in buffer or in dispersal routes of tigers.

50.3. Proper Human Resource Development and

Management:

50.3.1. The MoEF&CC and CEC are directed to jointly set up

a Special Cell to review and assess staffing patterns and cadre

requirements in all Tiger Reserves. This exercise shall be

completed in a time-bound manner, no later than within 1 year

from the date of this judgment.

50.3.2. After this exercise is completed, State Governments

will take steps to fill in all the vacancies in various cadres in

accordance with this exercise conducted by this Special Cell, in

a time-bound manner. Special care must be taken to avoid

outsourcing of core patrolling roles and scientific posts, and

Page 69 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 other such jobs which are integral to management of Tiger

Reserves.

50.3.3. The report of the Committee has also considered

various other aspects with regard to human resource

development. In that regard, we pass the following directions:

(a) There shall be strict prohibition on outsourcing of forest

staff officers in performance of core functions.

(b) The MoEF&CC is directed to consult the CEC to fill in

vacancies in all Tiger Reserves in a timebound manner.

(c) All the State Governments are directed to ensure that no

position of any field director is kept vacant.

(d) State Governments are directed to consider the option

for extending the facility of retaining government

accommodation in a place of choice when a staff of the

forest department is posted in remote wildlife areas. It

will not be out of place to mention that such facilities are

made available to the military and paramilitary forces

and also for the employees of the Central Government

working in the remote wildlife areas.

(e) We further find that it is also necessary to incentivize

forest forces in order to boost their morale. In military,

Page 70 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 paramilitary and in police service, various medals are

given for distinguished and exemplary services. Medals

which can be displayed on the uniform need to be

constructively thought of, as currently, there is no such

provision. As the uniform is widely regarded as a piece

of cloth which unifies a field formation, this would not

only give a sense of pride but also enhance the loyalty

towards the organization.

(f) Even the existing anti-poaching infrastructure needs to

be upgraded beyond the existing standards so as to

provide adequate amenities/ facilities to frontline staff

which are deployed here.

(g) Permanent Secondment to institutional bodies for

officers with desirable qualifications (WL trained/field

experience/prior experience at GoI level): With tasks

requiring a high degree of technical supervision on a

periodic basis, it is imperative to retain officers with the

required skill set gained through training, field

experience and most importantly experience at the

NTCA.

(h) Continuous capacity building of Staff and officials.

Page 71 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

(i) States should ensure that vacancies in all levels in Tiger

reserves are filled up on a priority basis, which currently

is the biggest limiting factor in ensuring protection and

other scientific interventions in tiger reserves.

(j) A separate cadre for veterinarians and wildlife biologists

needs to be created for Tiger reserves to assist field

formations to carry out tasks which are highly technical

in nature, keeping in view the enlarged scientific

mandate.

(k) A cadre for Sociologists to engage with the fringe

communities on an ongoing basis to create a social fence

is imperative.

(l) Capacity building of forest frontline should be an

ongoing process with regular financial assistance as

mandated under Section 38-O(1)(j) of the WLP Act.

(m) Focus should be on emerging thematic areas such as

rewilding of orphaned/habituated tigers, scientific

habitat management, Standard Operating Procedures of

the NTCA besides other guidelines and advisories.

(n) To incentivize posting in the tiger reserves the rates of

the project and ration allowance as prescribed in the

Page 72 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 NTCA guidelines need to be enhanced

incrementally whenever Dearness Allowance is

enhanced and be made at par with the para-military

forces.

(o) In the unfortunate event of death in the line of duty, ex-

gratia payment on par with paramilitary forces should

be provided.

(p) Field staff in Tiger Reserves and other forest areas have

to maintain two establishments simply because their

place of posting is deep in the forests and away from any

support such as schooling etc. Family accommodation

for the frontline staff who are posted at remote areas

should be adequately provided across all tiger range

states as per the rules laid down for all serving Defence

and police staff in remote locations. The Central

Government should consider enhanced support to

States for setting up residential accommodation such as

field hostels for families of staff posted in non-family

stations.

(q) The infrastructure of the camps where the guards stay

should have basic facilities like access to clean water,

Page 73 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 safer accommodation, clean washrooms,

communication services and first-aid kits. In camps with

female staff, it is important to provide a separate toilet

and change room.

(r) It is necessary that free medical care for all such persons

sustaining injuries when they work in the field needs to

be considered by the State Governments. Such a step

would act as a great morale booster for the field level

grass root staff.

(s) In the wildlife and forest divisions, field level staffs,

including regular employees and daily wage persons

work under high-risk situations. Many lose their lives

fighting such adversity. As such, it would be appropriate

if an Insurance Cover is made available for any such

forest staff or daily wager who loses his/her life or is

completely disabled in performance of their duty. It must

be ensured that all field personnel including contractual

staff and daily wages are enrolled in the Ayushman

Bharat Scheme.

(t) In military, paramilitary and police services, special

awards are given to those who lay down their lives in the

Page 74 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 line of duty, posthumously and support is provided to

the families of such persons who have sacrificed their

lives for a cause. We find that it will be appropriate if the

Union and State Governments consider extending the

same benefits for the forest posts as well.

50.4. Timely and adequate funding support: The

Committee has expressed concerns with regard to timely and

adequate funding. We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate

to direct that the MoEF&CC, the NTCA and the CEC will jointly

come out with a policy framework on funding for tiger reserves.

Such a policy should contain a Standard Operating Procedure

for raising budgetary grants and assessment and approval of the

same. We direct the MoEF&CC, the NTCA and CEC to formulate

the said policy framework on funding, within a period of 6

months from the date of this judgment.

50.5. Proper Human Wildlife Conflict Management:

Insofar as the recommendations made by the Committee in this

regard, we find that it will be appropriate if the NTCA frames

Model Guidelines, incorporating these suggestions within 6

months from the date of this judgment, which will then in turn

be implemented by the State Governments within 6 months from

Page 75 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 the date the Model Guidelines are issued. It is clarified that the

NTCA may consult the State Governments and the CEC, if

required, while framing these Model Guidelines. The Expert

Committee’s recommendations, which the NTCA may take note

of, are summarized below:

50.5.1. All states should have smooth and inclusive

compensation policies for crop damage, loss of life of both human

and cattle.

50.5.2. In order reduce the timelines to mitigate the issues

resulting out of Human wildlife conflict, close coordination

between different agencies and departments with mandated

responsibilities is ensured.

50.5.3. Notifying 'Human wildlife conflict' as a "natural

disaster" (as has already been done by some states like Uttar

Pradesh) should be actively considered by other states. All the

States are directed to give ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lakh as

fixed by the MoEF&CC under CSS-IWDH.

50.6. Green Infrastructure Development: We find the

Committee’s recommendations in this regard to be helpful and

accept the same. We, therefore, direct that:

Page 76 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 50.6.1. While infrastructure development is the need of the

hour, "avoidance" in wildlife bearing forests should always be

considered as the first mitigation. All information about Tiger

Reserves, Tiger Corridors, Protected Areas, and ESZ should be

uploaded on the "Gati Shakti" portal of the Central Government.

50.6.2. Mitigation measures as prescribed by the Wildlife

Institute of India, NTCA, Standing Committee of the National

Board of Wildlife for any developmental activity and linear

infrastructure must be strictly followed in the interest of wildlife

conservation and development both.

50.6.3. The transmission lines wherever are required to be

laid through tiger reserves, should be insulated or bunch cabling

to be done or be laid underground as per the technical feasibility.

50.7. Regulation of Religious Tourism: We have come

across various instances wherein the sites for pilgrimage are

situated within the Tiger Reserves. We have also come across the

grievance that on account of huge influx of devotees, there is

large disturbance to the wildlife. It is noticed that hundreds of

people ply within the core areas on account of such pilgrimage.

In order to regulate such disturbances, we find that a balanced

approach needs to be adopted balancing the concerns of the wild

Page 77 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 as well as religious sentiments of the devotees. We are informed

that Sariska Tiger Reserve and some other reserves have issued

certain guidelines so as to regulate the movement of devotees in

the core areas. We find that similar steps are required to be taken

into other Tigers Reserves wherever the sites of pilgrimage are

situated.

51. We, therefore, direct the MoEF&CC as well as the various

State Governments to take necessary steps by notifying rules

and/or by issuing memorandums or circulars for implementing

the directions and recommendations issued hereinabove within

a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgement.

52. We are, however, aware about the fact that in various Tiger

Reserves there could be peculiar situations. We, therefore,

though direct that the aforesaid directions and

recommendations would be made applicable to all the Tiger

Reserves, the State would be at liberty to make minor

modifications in the recommendations made by us hereinabove

in consultation with the Wildlife Institute of India and NTCA.

53. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance

rendered by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG. However, we

will be failing in our duty if we do not make a special mention

Page 78 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. K. Parameshwar,

learned Amicus Curiae ably assisted by Mr. M.V. Mukunda,

Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Mr. Shreenivas Patil and Ms. Veda

Singh, learned counsel. His in-depth research and meticulous

formulations have immensely assisted us in deciding this

issue, which is of paramount importance to environmental and

ecological justice.

54. Though we have requested Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned

Amicus Curiae, who has spent his valuable time in assisting this

Court in environmental matters for a period of almost three

years, to accept an honorarium, he has graciously refused to

accept the same stating that he was privileged to assist the Court

in the core issues pertaining to environment and ecological

preservation.

55. We, however, direct the CEC to pay an honorarium of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) each to Mr. M.V. Mukunda,

Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Mr. Shreenivas Patil and Ms. Veda

Singh, learned counsel, who have put in laborious efforts to

facilitate the learned Amicus Curiae in assisting this Court.

Though, we know that this amount would not be adequate for

Page 79 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 the services rendered by them, we have directed the payment

thereof as a token of appreciation for their services.

….......................................CJI (B.R.GAVAI)

……………...............................J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

………..…...............................J (A.S.CHANDURKAR)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 17, 2025.

Page 80 of 80 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995