The Court also asked the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to supervise and monitor the ecological recovery plan prepared by the State.
Supreme Court (Photo: IANS)
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Uttarakhand government to carry out full ecological restoration of the Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve, holding the state responsible for the extensive environmental harm caused by unauthorised construction and large-scale tree felling.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria directed the Chief Wildlife Warden to ensure that all illegal buildings inside the reserve are demolished within three months. The Court also asked the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to supervise and monitor the ecological recovery plan prepared by the State.
Advertisement
“The State of Uttarakhand is directed to restore and repair the ecological damage caused to the Corbett Tiger Reserve,” the Bench ordered.
Advertisement
On the issue of permitting a tiger safari, the Court emphasised strict compliance with the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) Rules, 2019. It directed the establishment of rescue centres, capped movement of vehicles, and restrict activities inside the reserve exclusively to eco-tourism. A detailed tiger conservation plan is to be formulated within three months.
The Bench further directed that the staff responsibilities must not be outsourced and recommended that forest personnel be recognised with awards to encourage better protection efforts.
Pronouncing the judgment, CJI Gavai noted, “We have issued guidelines to avoid human–animal conflict. We have asked the State to consult stakeholders and have also given directions concerning religious tourism in the area.”
The ruling follows earlier proceedings in March 2024, when the Court allowed tiger safari only in the buffer zone of Jim Corbett National Park and prohibited it in the core habitat.
Monday’s verdict was delivered in proceedings arising out of the proposed Pakhro Tiger Safari project in Jim Corbett National Park. The Court had kept the matter pending specifically to decide on issues relating to restoration and repair of environmental damage, culminating in the directions issued today.
Earlier in March 2024, the Supreme Court came down heavily on former Uttarakhand Forest Minister Harak Singh Rawat and Divisional Forest Officer Kishan Chand for illegally cutting a large number of trees and raising unauthorised constructions inside Jim Corbett National Park for the proposed Pakhro–Morghatti Tiger Safari, in clear violation of the Forest Conservation Act.
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice Sandeep Mehta said it was “amazed at the audacity” of the former Uttarakhand Forest Minister and his Divisional Forest Officer, observing that they acted as if they were “law unto themselves” and had thrown the public trust doctrine “into the dustbin” for commercial gains under the guise of tourism.
Taking serious note of the mass-scale environmental destruction, the Court directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to constitute a high-powered committee comprising representatives from NTCA, Wildlife Institute of India, Central Empowered Committee, and a Joint Secretary from MoEF as Member-Secretary. The committee was authorised to co-opt experts and even a representative from the Central Zoo Authority to make recommendations for the establishment and maintenance of the ‘Tiger Safaris’..
The Court also sought recommendations from senior forest officers—Chandra Prakash Goyal, Anup Malik, and Dr. Samir Sinha—for improving tiger reserve management nationwide. While existing tiger safaris, including the partially built one at Pakhro, were allowed to remain, the State was instructed to relocate or set up a rescue centre near the Pakhro facility.
Separately, the Court ordered the CBI to continue its criminal investigation into the illegalities highlighted by the Uttarakhand High Court and directed the State to complete disciplinary proceedings against erring officers within six months, with periodic status reports to be filed in the Supreme Court. The matter was kept pending for continuous monitoring.
Advertisement
