The Tiger Perishes Without the Forest and the Forest Perishes Without Its Tigers: Supreme Court Directs CEC to Probe Forest and Wildlife Law Violations in Tamil Nadu’s Agasthyamalai Landscape
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to conduct a comprehensive scientific survey of the Agasthyamalai landscape, which encompasses multiple tiger reserves and wildlife sanctuaries, to identify and report all instances of encroachment and non-forestry activity. The Court instructed the CEC to recommend measures for ecological restoration using satellite and geospatial technologies and mandated full cooperation from the State Government of Tamil Nadu and its agencies. The order also scheduled further hearings on the matter of rehabilitation of displaced workers.
The petitions before the Supreme Court arose from a batch of writ petitions, including public interest litigations and individual grievances, relating to the preservation of forest lands and claims of rehabilitation by former tea estate workers in Tamil Nadu. The central issue stemmed from the conversion of 3,388.78 hectares of forest land in the Singampatti region, which had been leased in 1929 by the then Zamindar to Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited (BBTCL) for cultivation purposes.
Over the decades, the area was used for the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, and rubber, with significant forest degradation. In a series of legal and administrative actions, the land was declared a Reserved Forest in 1978, a Core Critical Tiger Habitat in 2007, a Wildlife Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve in 2012, and officially included in the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Reserve Forest in 2018.
The BBTCL challenged these notifications in Writ Petition No. 16921 of 2014, which remains pending before the High Court of Madras. Meanwhile, a set of writ petitions—including W.P. (MD) Nos. 16381, 16501, 19108, and 24693 of 2024—were filed seeking restoration of the forest area and raising concerns about the activities of plantation workers post-eviction.
The High Court of Madras passed a consolidated order on December 3, 2024, closing the batch of writ petitions while giving general directions for the rehabilitation of displaced workers. However, it left the issue of ecological restoration and removal of encroachments unresolved.
Subsequently, petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking intervention in two principal areas: (i) restoration of the forest and protection of the ecosystem, and (ii) rehabilitation of the displaced tea estate workers. The matter attracted attention from multiple authorities including the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Government of Tamil Nadu, and concerned public officers such as the Deputy Director and Wildlife Warden of the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve.
In a detailed status report, forest officials confirmed that the lands leased to BBTCL were formally declared as a Reserved Forest in January 2018 following the due procedure under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. It was also clarified that the use of the land for non-forestry purposes, including plantation and commercial activities, required prior approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The affidavit further stated that the region forms the core of the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and is ecologically vital. It supports the catchment area of the Thamirabarani River, which supplies water to several districts. Forest authorities emphasized that disturbances to the ecosystem could have far-reaching environmental consequences.
The affidavit contested the claim that plantation workers were traditional forest dwellers, asserting that most were part of a migratory workforce not entitled to rehabilitation under applicable laws.
The Supreme Court noted that similar ecological concerns had been addressed in the 2018 decision of Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein directions were issued for preservation of the biodiversity-rich Agasthyamalai landscape. The Court also took note of previous rulings including T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, which reinforced the constitutional and statutory imperatives of forest conservation.
Amicus Curiae Shri K. Parameshwar submitted that substantial encroachment continued in the forest areas, including illegal cultivation and settlement. He requested the Court to mandate a scientific survey of the entire landscape using remote sensing, satellite imagery, and geospatial mapping to identify encroachments and recommend restoration measures. He further urged that non-forestry activities in forest areas be halted and that protection be granted to forest officers involved in eviction and enforcement proceedings.
Solicitor General Shri Tushar Mehta, who appeared during the previous hearing, submitted that the Central Government is committed to conservation and restoration of forest areas and shall unreservedly comply with all directions issued by the Court. The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu submitted that the State Government had initiated steps for removal of encroachments, restoration of forest lands, and rehabilitation of workers, and would cooperate fully with the directives of the Court and the CEC.
The Court recorded: “Forests not only provide for and facilitate the sustenance of life, but they also continue to protect and foster it.” Citing previous precedents, the Bench stated: “Despite the unblemished, selfless and motherly service rendered by forests, man in his folly continues with their destruction, unmindful of the fact that he is inadvertently destroying himself.”
In its remarks on the state’s obligations, the Court noted: “There is a crying need for a change in our approach. Man being an enlightened species, is expected to act as a trustee of the Earth.” It added: “It is not his right to destroy the habitat of other species but his duty to protect them from further peril.”
Emphasizing the interconnectedness of biodiversity and human survival, the Court referred to an earlier ruling: “The tiger perishes without the forest and the forest perishes without its tigers. Therefore, the tiger should stand guard over the forest and the forest should protect all its tigers.”
Highlighting the inadequacy of India’s current forest cover, the Court stated: “India has a forest cover of about 21.76% of its landmass, which is significantly lower than countries such as Nepal (44.74%), Bhutan (72%), and Sri Lanka (29%).” The Bench added: “Almost 13000 sq. kms. area of forests is under encroachment, according to data from the Ministry of Environment and Forests.”
The Court recorded the submission of the Amicus Curiae that: “Only after the forest areas are identified and distinctly demarcated, measures required to restore and rejuvenate the forest areas... can be set in motion.”
On the ecological significance of the area, the Bench quoted: “Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve forms the core zone of Agasthiyarmalai Biosphere Reserve. In the 4th World Congress of Biosphere Reserves, Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve has been declared as World Biosphere Reserve.”
The Court directed: “We hereby direct the CEC to conduct an extensive survey of the entire Agasthyamalai landscape, which would include Periyar Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Meghamalai and Thirunelveli Wildlife Sanctuaries.”
It further ordered: “The CEC shall indicate in its report all instances of non-forestry activities going on in these areas contrary to the statutory provisions viz, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, etc.”
The Court mandated: “Comparative data pertaining to the forest cover as it existed earlier vis-à-vis the current position shall also be provided so as to gauge the extent of depletion/degradation in the forest area.”
Additionally, it directed: “The CEC shall also recommend measures for restoration of (a) the reserved forests, (b) the tiger habitats, and (c) elephant corridors and (d) other wildlife reserves (sanctuaries) in and around the Agsthyamalai landscape.”
To facilitate the survey, the Court ordered: “The concerned officials of the State Government including the District Administration, the Police Administration and the forest officials of each district involved shall be responsible for providing all required assistance and support to the CEC.”
The Bench granted: “Twelve weeks’ time to the CEC for completing this exercise.” The matter was scheduled to be listed next on 15th July, 2025 for receiving the report, with the issue of rehabilitation of workers to be heard on 22nd April, 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Prasanna S., Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Sanjana Srikumar, Advocate; Ms. Kritika, Advocate; Ms. Vanshika Mohta, Advocate; Mr. Henri Tiphangne, Advocate; Mr. Robert Chandra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate, Advocate General; Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Senior Advocate, Additional Advocate General; Ms. Purnima Krishna, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. M.F. Philip, Advocate; Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Advocate; Mr. Renganath, Advocate; Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Advocate
Amicus Curiae: Mr. K. Parameshwar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rajigururaj, Advocate; Mr. Srinivas Patil, Advocate; Ms. Chitransha Singh Shikarwar, Advocate
Case Title: A. John Kennedy & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 443
Case Number: SLP(C) Nos. 999–1001 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
[Read/Download order]
