Submit Plan For Restoration Of Corbett Tiger Reserve; Demolish Unauthorised Construction: Supreme Court Directs Uttarakhand State
The Supreme Court emphasised that it is the Court’s duty 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.
Supreme Court, Tiger Reserve
The Supreme Court has directed the State of Uttarakhand to submit a plan for the restoration of the Corbett Tiger Reserve and demolish unauthorized construction.
The Court accepted the recommendations made by the Expert Committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) vide an Office Memorandum dated March 15, 2024.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice A.S. Chandurkar issued the following directions –
The State of Uttarakhand through the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand, in consultation with the CEC (Central Empowered Committee), is directed to:
• 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;
• Begin all clearing/demolition of unauthorised construction as identified by the Expert Committee, before the lapse of 3 months from the date of the Judgment;
• File a compliance affidavit within a period of 1 year;
• 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 native and indigenous species are identified, with special care to not introduce any alien species to the ecosystem.
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar was appointed as an Amicus Curiae, assisted by Advocates M.V. Mukunda, Kanti, Raji Gururaj, Shreenivas Patil, and Veda Singh. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati and Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal appeared as Applicant in person and Standing Counsel (Advocate) Abhishek Attrey appeared for the State of Uttarakhand.
Background
The Apex Court had on March 6, 2024 passed a Judgment in the proceedings wherein it 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, 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, the Court directed constitution of an Expert Committee for carrying out an in-depth inquiry, and make recommendations based on various aspects as laid down in the said Judgment, specifically including – restoration, 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. Pursuant to that, the Expert Committee was constituted by the MoEF&CC vide an Office Memorandum, which submitted its report and copies of the same were supplied to the parties.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in the above regard, observed, “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.”
It emphasised that it is the Court’s duty 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.
“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/-”, it noted.
The Court directed that the State of Uttarakhand shall restore the ecological damage caused to the Corbett Tiger Reserve under the supervision, guidance and control of the CEC and 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.
“Also, as per the earlier judgment dated 6th March 2024 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”, it added.
Notifying ESZ for Tiger Reserves
The Court said that not all Tiger Reserves have notified the Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) and that the 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”, it further directed.
Permitted and regulated activities
The Court also directed the State Governments to take into consideration the Expert Committee’s recommendations while framing the required statutory or regulatory framework. It summarized the following prohibited and regulated activities –
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.
(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.
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.
(v) Movement of vehicular traffic at night.
(vi) Protection of hill slopes and river banks as per the master plan.
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, the Court accepted the recommendations of the Committee. It issued the following directions –
• Ecotourism cannot resemble mass tourism and must be adequately regulated and adhere strictly to NTCA Guidelines;
• New eco-friendly resorts may be allowed in buffer but shall not be allowed in an identified corridor;
• Homestays and community-managed establishments should be encouraged and incentives should also be given to them;
• Zero waste practices should be made mandatory;
• Use of mobile phones within tourism zones of the core habitat of tiger reserves should not be permitted;
• Vehicular carrying capacity as prescribed in the NTCA guidelines needs to be calculated and strictly enforced;
• Complete ban on night tourism must be implemented;
• 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.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court issued the following directions with respect to different issues –
• 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.
• Delineation of core and buffer areas
• All the States are directed to prepare Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP) within a period of 6 months.
• 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.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the MoEF&CC as well as the various State Governments shall take necessary steps by notifying rules and/or by issuing memorandums or circulars for implementing the directions and recommendations issued within a period of 6 months.
Accordingly, the Apex Court issued the necessary directions.
Cause Title- In Re: Corbett (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1325)
