A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case scrutinizes the legalities surrounding the establishment of a Tiger Safari in the buffer zone of the Corbett Tiger Reserve, alongside violations including illegal construction and deforestation. Central to the judgment are critical doctrines and principles like the Public Trust Doctrine, Ecological Restitution, and ecocentrism over anthropocentrism, balancing conservation with regulated eco-tourism. Addressing the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act), the Court examines whether the proposed safari contravenes wildlife conservation efforts. The court’s directives aim to restore ecological balance, enforce accountability, and realign management practices in adherence to national and international conservation standards.

Keywords: Tiger Safari, Corbett Tiger Reserve, Public Trust Doctrine, Ecological Restitution, Wildlife Conservation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number
I.A. No. 20650 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995

iii) Judgment Date
06 March 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice B.R. Gavai

vii) Citation
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 187; 2024 INSC 178

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Sections 2(39), 33(a), 38V, etc.)
• National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) Guidelines (2012, 2016, 2019)
• National Forest Policy, 1988
• Constitution of India, Article 252

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
None identified.

x) Case Related to Law Subjects
Environmental Law, Constitutional Law, Wildlife Protection, Administrative Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case stems from environmental violations within the Corbett Tiger Reserve. Reports from environmentalists, public interest litigants, and statutory bodies highlighted illegal activities, including unauthorized construction and deforestation. Central to the issue was the legality of establishing a Tiger Safari under the WLP Act and whether it aligned with conservation objectives or prioritized tourism. The Court examined doctrines, legal frameworks, and expert reports to reconcile wildlife protection with human activity in eco-sensitive zones.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Allegations of Violations: Illegal construction of roads and felling of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve buffer zone for the Tiger Safari project was highlighted in petitions and reports.
2. High Court Directions: The Uttarakhand High Court directed authorities to investigate and prevent illegal activities, emphasizing compliance with the WLP Act.
3. Reports from Statutory Bodies: Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and NTCA found violations in deforestation and construction activities without necessary approvals.
4. Government Stance: The State of Uttarakhand argued for the legality of the safari under NTCA guidelines, with permissions in place for eco-tourism development in buffer zones.
5. CBI Involvement: The case involved directives for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into officials’ roles in permitting violations.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Tiger Safaris and zoos share the same legal footing under the WLP Act.
2. Legality of establishing a Tiger Safari in a buffer zone of the Corbett Tiger Reserve.
3. Application of doctrines like the Public Trust Doctrine and Ecological Restitution.
4. Role of NTCA guidelines in regulating Tiger Safaris.
5. Accountability for illegal construction and deforestation.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Conflict with Conservation Goals: Tiger Safaris compromise in-situ conservation mandated under the WLP Act.
2. Anthropocentric Approach Criticized: Petitioners argued for an ecocentric model prioritizing intrinsic ecological values.
3. Violations of NTCA Guidelines: The establishment defied procedural requirements, including approvals from the National Board.
4. Precedents on Public Trust Doctrine: Petitioners cited M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath emphasizing state accountability for natural resource protection.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Compliance with Guidelines: The State asserted adherence to NTCA and CZA guidelines, with all requisite approvals.
2. Buffer Zone Regulations: Respondents distinguished buffer areas as zones permitting controlled human activity.
3. Benefit to Conservation: The safari aimed to educate visitors and rehabilitate injured tigers, aligning with conservation.
4. Disputed Damage Reports: The Forest Survey of India’s findings on illegal tree felling were challenged as exaggerated.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Distinct Legal Frameworks for Zoos and Safaris: The Court clarified that Tiger Safaris in buffer zones must comply strictly with conservation-oriented NTCA guidelines (2016).
2. Safeguards Against Abuse: Existing and future safaris were subjected to stringent expert oversight to prevent ecological damage.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasized shifting from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism in environmental jurisprudence.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. Expert Committee establishment for restoration measures and policy recommendations.
2. Prohibition of non-conservation activities in tiger reserves.
3. Monitoring of projects by the Supreme Court for compliance.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The case reinforces the principle that wildlife conservation laws prioritize ecological integrity over tourism. It strengthens the application of international environmental principles like ecological restitution while ensuring accountability. A balanced approach integrating tourism with conservation was emphasized, aligning policy with global sustainable development goals.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
• National Forest Policy, 1988
• Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992