LexIN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 187 : 2024 INSC 178 In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. In Re : Gaurav Kumar Bansal I.A. No.20650 of 2023 In Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 Of 1995 06 March 2024 [B.R. Gavai,* Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; (iii) Illegal construction in Corbett Tiger reserve and illegal felling of trees for the said purpose; (iv) ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine and (v) Principle of Ecological Restitution. Headnotes Wildlife Protection – ‘Tiger Reserve’ – Management and protection of – Whether ‘zoo’ as defined u/s.2(39) and dealt with under Chapter IVA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and ‘Tiger Safaris’ as conceptualized by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) would stand on a same footing – ‘Tiger Safari’, if permissible in buffer / fringe areas of Tiger reserve – Establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger Reserve – Legality of – NTCA guidelines for Normative Standards for Tourism Activities and for Project Tiger for tiger conservation in the buffer and core areas of the tiger reserves, 2012 – NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2016 – NTCA Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safaris in Buffer and Fringe Areas of the Tiger Reserves, 2019 – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines for preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP), 2007 – National Wildlife Action Plan, 2017-2031 – National Forest Policy, 1988. Held: 1.1. The definition of ‘zoo’ as defined under s.2(39) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act) itself would show that 188 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports it is meant to be an establishment, whether stationary or mobile, where captive animals are kept for exhibiting to the public or ex-situ conservation and include a circus and off-exhibit facilities such as rescue centres and conservation breeding centres – However, it does not include the establishment of a licensed dealer in captive animals – Though a ‘zoo’ as contemplated under Chapter IVA of the WLP Act also deals with conservation, it emphasizes on ex- situ conservation – Insofar as area covered under a sanctuary is concerned, a safari cannot be constructed within the said area unless there is a prior approval of the National Board of Wildlife – ‘Tiger Safaris’ conceptualized by the NTCA are not for the parks which are working either as zoos or as an extension to zoos. [Paras 79, 80, 83] 1.2. Prima facie, there is no infirmity in the guidelines issued by the NTCA, i.e., the 2012 Guidelines and the 2016 Guidelines for establishing the ‘Tiger Safaris’ in the buffer and fringe areas of the ‘Tiger Reserve’ – The said Guidelines emphasizes on the rehabilitation of injured tigers (after suitable treatment), conflict tigers, and orphaned tiger cubs which are unfit for rewilding and release into the wild – However, the 2019 Guidelines, departing from the aforesaid purpose, provide for sourcing of animals from zoos in the Tiger Safaris – This would be totally contrary to the purpose of the Tiger Conservation – Although it will not be permissible to establish a ‘Tiger Safari’ in a core or critical tiger habitat area without obtaining the prior approval of the National Board, such an activity would be permissible in the buffer or peripheral area – However, such a ‘safari’ can be established only for the purposes specified in clause 9 of the 2016 Guidelines and not as per the 2019 Guidelines. [Paras 100, 101, 103] 1.3 On facts, the concerned authorities, who have expertise in the matter, have approved the said site at Pakhrau – In the peculiar facts, this Court is inclined to approve the establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau. [Paras 113 and 114] 1.4. Presence of a Tiger in the forest is an indicator of the well- being of the ecosystem – Unless steps are taken for the protection of the Tigers, the ecosystem revolving around Tigers cannot be protected – The events like illegal constructions and illicit felling of trees on a rampant scale like the one that happened in the Corbett National Park cannot be ignored – Steps are required to prevent this – Courts are not experts in the field – It will be appropriate t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.