Rights Of Tribals & Forest Dwellers Are Protected Even After Declaration Of Area As Wildlife Sanctuary: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the rights of the tribals and forest dwellers are protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA) and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) even after declaration of an area as a Wildlife Sanctuary.

The Court held thus while banning mining activities within an area of one kilometre (km) from National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, noting that such activities will be hazardous to the wildlife.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “… we are of the considered view that the provisions contained in Section 24(2)(c) of the WPA and Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of the FRA amply protect the rights of the tribals and forest dwellers even after declaration of the said area as a wildlife sanctuary.”

The Bench said that Section 3 of FRA protects the individual rights as well as the rights of the community pertaining to habitat and habitation, conversion of leases or grants, the right to live on forest lands, as well as in situ rehabilitation.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar was appointed as an Amicus Curiae assisted by Advocates M.V. Mukunda, Kanti, Raji Gururaj, Veda Singh, Shreenivas Patil, Prasad Hegde, and Sai Kaushal, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Jharkhand, Advocate Shibani Ghosh for the Applicant, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Steel Authority of India. 

Factual Background

The issue in this case was related to the Saranda forest area in the State of Jharkhand which is one of the most pristine Sal forests in the world. It is a biodiversity hotspot, interconnected with forests in the States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh, creating a contiguous wildlife corridor. The region is rich in biodiversity and wildlife and includes within its confines the critically endangered and endemic Sal Forest Tortoise, four horned antelope, Asian palm civet, wild elephants, leopards, sambar and chital deer, bison, barking deer, and numerous species of birds and reptiles.

The erstwhile unified State of Bihar, by a notification had in 1968 declared an extent of 31,468.25 hectares (approx. 314 sq. kms) in the Saranda forest area as the “Saranda Game Sanctuary”. This was done pursuant to relevant provisions of the Bihar Forest, Hunting, Shooting and Fishing Rules, 1958. On bifurcation of the then State of Bihar into States of Bihar and Jharkhand, this area now falls within the State of Jharkhand. Neither any kind of mining excavation operations nor any diversion of forest land for mining purpose was undertaken in respect of the area of 31,468.25 hectares. The Apex Court had asked the Jharkhand Government to take a decision to declare the ecologically-rich Saranda region as a reserve forest. Vide an Order dated October 27, 2025, the case was reserved for Judgment.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in the above regard, noted, “There cannot, therefore, be any dispute that according to these constitutional commitments and the environmental jurisprudence, as has developed on account of various judgments of this Court over the decades, the State is required to recognize and protect areas of ecological significance, and particularly to conserve and protect wildlife and its inhabitants. The State has a positive obligation and a mandate to provide statutory protection to forests and wildlife and declare ecologically significant areas to be statutorily protected. Furthermore, upon a perusal of the report of the WII and also the various affidavits filed by the State itself, it cannot be disputed that the Saranda Forest require protection as envisaged under Section 26A of the WP Act.”

The Court remarked that in view of the mandate of Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, Section 26A of the WPA and particularly in the light of the report of the WII (Wildlife Institute of India), the State cannot run away from its duty to declare the extent of 31,468.25 hectares as Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary.

“We see no justification in excluding the compartments which have been notified in the MPSM to be conservation area/no mining zone from the proposed wildlife sanctuary. We say so because the MPSM has recommended thus in order to adhere to the principle of Sustainable Development. … This Court has time and again emphasized on the necessity to strike a balance between environmental protection and the need for development”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the Collector, in consultation with the Chief Wild Life Warden, is entitled to allow the continuation of any right of any person in or over any land within the limits of the sanctuary.

“It can thus be seen that none of the rights about which the State has expressed its concerns, through its application for modification of order of this court dated 8th October 2025, would at all be disturbed for either an individual or for the community as a whole”, it observed.

The Court enunciated that sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the FRA which begins with a non-obstante clause recognizes and vests forest rights in the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and also the other traditional forest dwellers and under sub Section (2) thereof, even if any modification of forest rights or resettlement in critical wildlife habitats of national parks or wildlife sanctuaries for creating inviolate areas for wildlife conservation recognized under the said Act has to be done, very stringent provisions have been made.

“The bogey that on declaration of wildlife sanctuary, the habitations and rights of the tribals and traditional forest dwellers will be lost and vital public infrastructures like educational institutions, roads, etc., will have to be demolished is only a figment of imagination of the State. Rather than taking such a stand before this court, we are of the considered view that the State should have educated the tribals/forest dwellers residing in the said areas about the rights available to them under the FRA as well as the WPA”, it further remarked.

The Court explained that the diversion of forest lands is permitted under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the FRA for any of the purposes stated therein and in that view of the matter, the contention of the State that it has reduced the area of 31,468.25 hectare to 24,941.64 hectare taking into consideration the protection of the rights of the tribals and forest dwellers is without any substance.

“In the totality of circumstances, we find that the State has been changing its stand time and again. Earlier, it had clearly admitted that in 126 compartments which were notified as the Saranda Game Sanctuary vide 1968 Notification, neither any kind of mining excavation operations nor any diversion of Forest Land for mining purposes have been undertaken except in part of the area approximately measuring 4.31 hectares. Subsequently, the stand had been changed wherein the State submitted that it is considering declaration of area measuring 57,519.41 hectare as against the original area measuring 31,468.25 hectare as a wildlife sanctuary. This stand was, yet again, changed and finally the State now proposes to notify only an area of 24,941.64 hectare as wildlife sanctuary”, it also said.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court observed that it does not see any reason as to why the entire area of 126 compartments notified under 1968 notification should not be declared as wildlife sanctuary.

“However, taking into consideration the MPSM which excluded compartment numbers KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13 and KP-14 as either Mining Zone-I or Mining Zone-II, we are inclined to permit the State to exclude the aforesaid six compartments from the area to be notified as wildlife sanctuary”, it added.

The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –

(i) The State Government shall notify the area comprising of 126 compartments as notified in 1968 notification, excluding six compartments i.e., compartment numbers KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13 and KP-14, as a wildlife sanctuary within a period of three months.

(ii) The State of Jharkhand shall give wide publicity to the fact that by this Judgment, neither the individual rights nor the community rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers in the said area would be adversely affected.

(iii) The State shall also give wide publicity to the fact that in view of the provision of Section 3 read with sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the FRA all the rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers both individually as well as of community shall stand protected.

“In the foregoing paragraphs, we have already held that in view of the provisions contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the FRA, the activities as prayed in the IA are permissible activities. Even after the declaration of the area covered under the 1968 Notification as a Wildlife Sanctuary, ancillary activities as sought to be carried out by the Applicant-SAIL would be continued to be permitted”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court issued the necessary directions.

Cause Title- In Re: Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1311)

Click here to read/download the Judgment