Supreme Court Mandates Pan-India Tiger Reserve Compliance Framework; Bars Core-Area Safaris And Orders Ecological Restoration In Corbett
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice AS Chandurkar issued binding directions on tiger safaris, the administration of tiger reserves and the protection of sensitive tiger habitats. Relying on the Expert Committee’s findings following irregularities in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, the Court mandated that all States implement specified measures within defined timelines. It directed States to consider classifying human–wildlife conflict as a natural disaster and required a uniform ex gratia payment of Rs 10 lakh for every human fatality, in line with Ministry guidelines. For the violations at Corbett, the Court ordered Uttarakhand to demolish unauthorised structures linked to the Pakhrau Tiger Safari within three months and complete ecological restoration under committee supervision, with a compliance report due within one year.
The case concerns unauthorised constructions, road work and tree felling undertaken inside the Corbett Tiger Reserve during the creation of the Pakhrau Tiger Safari. Following concerns about environmental damage, the Supreme Court’s order of 6 March 2024 led to the constitution of an Expert Committee by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
The Committee, comprising officials from the CEC, NTCA, Wildlife Institute of India and the Ministry, met between March and June 2024 and conducted a field inspection from 30 May to 1 June 2024. It identified structural alterations, disturbed soil and drainage patterns, and ecological damage spread across roughly 118 hectares. Its assessment placed the combined ecological and timber-related losses at about Rs. 29.8 crore.
The Committee reviewed relevant provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and NTCA guidelines on tiger safaris. As the CBI is investigating responsibility for the violations, the Committee did not attribute blame and recommended that any restoration-related funds be maintained in a dedicated account with annual reporting to the CEC.
The Court recorded that “a perusal of the entire scheme of the WLP Act… would clearly reveal that the entire emphasis is on ‘conservation, protection and management of the wildlife’”. It further stated that “the legislature intended the ‘Tiger Reserves’ to be kept at a higher pedestal than a sanctuary, a National Park, a conservation reserve, or a community reserve”. It also noted that “the provisions contained in Chapter IVA lay a specific emphasis on the protection of tigers and other habitats in the tiger reserve.”
The Court noted that it “held meetings on various dates… and went for a field visit from 30th May 2024 to 1st June 2024 to inspect the entire area affected… in the name of establishment of the Pakhrau Tiger Safari.” It observed that the Committee identified ecological damage and stated that “the total area of ecosystem damage is likely to be in 118.19 ha.” The Committee further assessed that “the potential ecological loss… is assessed in monetary terms as Rs. 22,95,06,306… with conceivable net market value of felled timber as Rs. 6.80 Cr… total damage costs are estimated to be about Rs. 29.8 Cr.”
The Court recorded the Committee’s position regarding responsibility, noting that “as the CBI is effectively investigating the issue, the Committee deemed it fit to not assess the same issue, to avoid overlapping of responses.” On utilisation of funds, it noted the statement that the amount “has to be deposited in a separate account maintained by the Field Director, Corbett Tiger Reserve and the State shall file annual compliance report with the CEC.”
The Court directed: “in light of the recommendations made by the Expert Committee, the restitutive approach elaborated hereinabove and the earlier judgment of this Court dated 6th March 2024, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in continuation of our earlier orders.”
The Court directed that “the State of Uttarakhand through the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand, in consultation with the CEC, 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 this judgment; and file a compliance affidavit within a period of 1 year from the date of this judgment.”
“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.”
“We are, however, not inclined to go into the issue with regard to valuation of quantification of costs for restoration as well as the potential ecological loss caused from the Safari project. We are also not inclined to go into the issue with regard to number of trees felled since trial and the prosecution at the instance of CBI is pending. Rather, we find that it will be in the interest of justice that the State of Uttarakhand is directed to restore the ecological damage caused to the Corbett Tiger Reserve under the supervision, guidance and control of the CEC. Needless to say that 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.”
On financial responsibility, the Court directed that “as per the earlier judgment dated 6th March 2024 in 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.”
Turning to tiger safaris in buffer and fringe areas, the Court recorded that “the Committee’s findings and recommendations on this aspect, are also accepted” and held that “in terms of the proviso to Section 33(a) and the provisions contained in the Explanation (ii) of sub-section 4 of Section 38-V of the WLP Act and the judgement of this Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra), it is categorically held that Tiger Safari shall not be permitted in the core or a critical tiger habitat area.”
“Tiger Safari shall be established on ‘non-forest land’ or ‘degraded forest land’ in buffer area provided that is not part of a tiger corridor” and that “Tiger Safari shall be allowed only in association with a full-fledged rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers where conflict animals, injured animals or abandoned animals are housed for care and rehabilitation.”
On guidelines for Tiger Safaris, the Court stated: “We accept the Committee’s recommendations with regards to Guidelines for Tiger Safaris and direct that they may be established and run with due consideration of the ‘Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safari in Buffer and Fringe Areas of Tiger Reserves 2019’ issued by the NTCA with the following additional requirements.”
It then directed that “the directions of this Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra) with regard to sourcing of animals shall be strictly adhered to; only animals rescued and/or conflict animals from the Tiger Reserve or from the same landscape should be housed in the Tiger Safaris; Rescue Centre to be established in conjunction with such Tiger Safari shall provide essential veterinary support to such facility and help in treatment/care of captured animals; Tiger Safari should be under the management control of the Field Director of the concerned Tiger Reserve with supervision of the Chief Wildlife Warden; Earnings should be ploughed back through the concerned Tiger Conservation Foundations.”
“Design considerations should be such that there is no scope for interaction between in-situ and ex-situ populations; Enclosure design must be approved by the CZA; Carrying capacity norms should be developed; Solar/Hybrid/Electric vehicles to be promoted and number of vehicles also must be regulated; and Strict Zero Discharge of waste water to be permitted from safaris.”
On Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs), the Court referred to the 23 April 2018 MoEF&CC letter and directed that “we find strength in the rationale of this letter, that the very minimum protection that buffer zones are entitled to, is that which is afforded to the environment in ESZs… therefore, we approve the same. It follows as a natural corollary that insofar as the buffer zone of a critical tiger habitat or the buffer zone of the Tiger Reserve is concerned, the same restrictions as envisaged in the Notification dated 09.02.2011 will apply.”
“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” and that “the formulation of ESZs for these Tiger Reserves will abide by the letter dated 23rd April 2018 issued by the MoEF&CC… These ESZs will be accorded the same safeguards provided in the Notification dated 9th February 2011… Therefore, activities that are permitted inside these ESZs for Tiger Reserves, will be the same as activities which are governed under the said Notification.”
The Court specifically clarified that “these notified ESZs will be subject to all the same restrictions as per the Notification dated 09.02.2011, including the restriction that within a distance of 1 km from a Tiger Habitat or buffer area, or the notified ESZ (whichever is larger), there will be a complete ban on mining activities.”
“In addition to the conditions with regard to areas notified as ESZ which would be applicable to the buffer or fringe areas of Tiger Reserves, we also accept the recommendations of the Committee as to what activities shall be permitted, regulated and prohibited in the aforesaid areas. We direct the State Governments to take into consideration these recommendations while framing the required statutory or regulatory framework.” It then set out, verbatim, the lists of prohibited and regulated activities and additional recommendations in paragraphs 47.2.1, 47.2.2 and 47.2.3.
“With regard to permissibility of the resorts within the close proximity of the protected areas and if permitted, the restrictions to be imposed, we accept the recommendations of the Committee. We, therefore, issue the following directions in that regard: 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.”
On noise, the Court directed that “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 from the date of this judgment” and that “the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government shall also consider declaring that all Protected Areas of the State and their ESZs… as Silence Zones with similar norms as above.”
For pan-India statutory measures, the Court ordered that “all the States are hereby directed to notify the buffer and core areas of the Tiger Reserves within 6 months from the date of this judgment” and that “all States are hereby directed to prepare a Tiger Conservation Plan within a period of 3 months from the date of this judgment.” It added that “Steering Committee if not yet constituted for each Tiger Reserve, shall be done so within 2 months from the date of this judgment” and that “the NTCA… is directed to monitor… whether the TCPs have been put in place or not and whether the Steering Committees have been meeting on a regular basis or not… the Steering Committees shall hold at least two meetings in a year.”
On tourism regulation, the Court held that “we direct that all States must adhere to the NTCA guidelines on tourism, thus adopting the overarching aim for regulation to move towards a system of community-based tourism around Tiger Reserves. Its prescription against night tourism in entirety, is also hereby approved.”
it further directed that “all the States are directed to prepare Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP) within a period of 6 months from the date of this judgment; Financial assistance under the Project Tiger component of the CSS-IDWH should be mandatorily linked to an approved Tiger conservation plan; Forest areas in buffer and corridor regions identified in the TCP should be managed as per the TCP; Forestry operations in forest lands forming part of the buffer areas should be incorporated in TCP…; Critical Tiger Habitat… should be treated at equivalence with Critical Wildlife Habitats…; TCP should also have the tiger carrying capacity calculated…; While continuing the use of CAMPA funds for voluntary village relocation, dedicated funds should be earmarked… Voluntary village relocation should also be financially assisted in areas of other strategic ecological value…”
On human resources, the Court directed that “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… no later than within 1 year from the date of this judgment” and that “State Governments will take steps to fill in all the vacancies in various cadres… in a time-bound manner.” It then issued detailed directions in clause 50.3.3(a)–(t), including “strict prohibition on outsourcing of forest staff officers in performance of core functions”, ensuring “no position of any field director is kept vacant”, incentivising forest forces, upgrading anti-poaching infrastructure, creating separate cadres for veterinarians, wildlife biologists and sociologists, continuous capacity building, enhanced allowances, ex-gratia on par with paramilitary forces, family accommodation and basic facilities in camps, “free medical care” for injuries, insurance cover for staff and daily wagers, Ayushman Bharat enrollment, and extending recognition and benefits akin to those in military and police services.
On funding, the Court directed that “the MoEF&CC, the NTCA and the CEC will jointly come out with a policy framework on funding for tiger reserves… within a period of 6 months from the date of this judgment.”
On human–wildlife conflict, it held that “it will be appropriate if the NTCA frames Model Guidelines… within 6 months… which will then in turn be implemented by the State Governments within 6 months from the date the Model Guidelines are issued” and recorded that “all the States are directed to give ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lakh as fixed by the MoEF&CC under CSS-IWDH.”
On green infrastructure, the Court directed that “‘avoidance’ in wildlife bearing forests should always be considered as the first mitigation”, that “all information about Tiger Reserves, Tiger Corridors, Protected Areas, and ESZ should be uploaded on the ‘Gati Shakti’ portal”, that “Mitigation measures as prescribed by the Wildlife Institute of India, NTCA, Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife… must be strictly followed” and that “the transmission lines… through tiger reserves, should be insulated or bunch cabling… or be laid underground as per the technical feasibility.”
Regarding religious tourism, the Court held that “a balanced approach needs to be adopted balancing the concerns of the wild as well as religious sentiments of the devotees” and that “similar steps are required to be taken into other Tigers Reserves wherever the sites of pilgrimage are situated.”
“The MoEF&CC as well as the various State Governments… take necessary steps by notifying rules and/or by issuing memorandums or circulars for implementing the directions and recommendations issued hereinabove within a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgement” and clarified that “the aforesaid directions and recommendations would be made applicable to all the Tiger Reserves, [but] the State would be at liberty to make minor modifications… in consultation with the Wildlife Institute of India and NTCA.”
Case Title: In Re: Corbett
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 77
Case Number: I.A. No. 20650/2023, I.A. No. 75033/2023, I.A. No. 199355/2024 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202/1995
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice A.S. Chandurkar
