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 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 exsitu 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 wellbeing 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 that experts in the field come together and come out with a solution that would go a long way in the effective management and protection of the Tiger Reserves. [Para 160].

1.5. The following directions need to be issued in the interests of justice :

B. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) shall appoint a Committee consisting of the following : (i) a representative of the NTCA; (ii) a representative of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII); (iii) a representative of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC); and (iv) an officer of the MoEF&CC not below the rank of Joint Secretary as its Member Secretary. The Committee would be entitled to co-opt any other authority including a representative of Central Zoo Authority (CZA) and also take the services of the experts in the field, if found necessary.

C. The said Committee will : (i) recommend the measures for restoration of the damages, in the local in situ environment to its original state before the damage was caused; (ii) assess the environmental damage caused in the Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) and quantify the costs for restoration; (iii) identify the persons/officials responsible for such a damage. The State shall recover the cost so quantified from the persons/ delinquent officers found responsible for the same. The cost so recovered shall be exclusively used for the purpose of restoration of the damage caused to the environment; and (iv) specify how the funds so collected be utilized for active restoration of ecological damage.  

D. The aforesaid Committee, inter alia, shall consider and recommend:

(i) The question as to whether Tiger Safaris shall be permitted in the buffer area or fringe area;

 (ii) If such Safaris can be permitted, then what should be the guidelines for establishing such Safaris?

(iii) While considering the aforesaid aspect, the Committee shall take into consideration the following factors : 

a) the approach must be of ecocentrism and not of anthropocentrism;

b) the precautionary principle must be applied to ensure that the least amount of environmental damage is caused; 

c) the animals sourced shall not be from outside the Tiger Reserve. Only injured, conflicted, or orphaned tigers may be exhibited as per the 2016 Guidelines. To that extent the contrary provisions in the 2019 Guidelines stand quashed; 

d) That such Safaris should be proximate to the Rescue Centres. The aforesaid factors are only some of the factors to be taken into consideration and the Committee would always be at liberty to take such other factors into consideration as it deems fit. 

(iv) The type of activities that should be permitted and prohibited in the buffer zone and fringe areas of the Tiger Reserve. While doing so, if tourism is to be promoted, it has to be ecotourism. The type of construction that should be permissible in such resorts would be in tune with the natural environment. 

(v) The number and type of resorts that should be permitted within the close proximity of the protected areas. What restriction to be imposed on such resorts so that they are managed in tune with the object of protecting and maintaining the ecosystem rather than causing obstruction in the same.

(vi) As to within how much areas from the boundary of the protected forest there should be restriction on noise level and what should be those permissible noise levels.  

(vii) The measures that are required to be taken for effective management and protection of Tiger Reserves which shall be applicable on a Pan India basis.

(viii) The steps to be taken for scrupulously implementing such recommendations.

E. The CBI is directed to effectively investigate the matter as directed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in its judgment and order dated 6th September 2023, passed in Writ Petition No.178 of 2021.

F. The present proceedings shall be kept pending so that this Court can monitor the steps taken by the Authorities as well as the investigation conducted by the CBI.  

G. This Court will consider issuing appropriate directions after the recommendations are received by this Court from the aforesaid Committee. The Committee is requested to give its preliminary report within a period of three months from today. 

H. The CBI shall submit a report to this Court within a period of three months from today. 

I. The State of Uttarakhand is directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officers as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six months from today. The status report in this regard shall be submitted to this Court within a period of three months from today. [Para 161]

Held: The enactment of the WLP Act was necessitated since it was noticed that there was rapid decline of India’s wild animals and birds, which was one of the richest and most varied in the world – The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 had become completely outmoded – The existing State laws were not only outdated but provided punishments that were not commensurate with the offence and the financial benefits which accrue from poaching and trade in wildlife produce – However, since the subject matters were relatable to Entry 20 of the State list in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Parliament had no power to make a law unless the Legislatures of two or more States passed a resolution in pursuance of Article 252 of the Constitution – Accordingly, 11 States had passed resolutions to that effect – In this background, the WLP Act came to be enacted – The entire emphasis of the WLP Act is on the conservation, protection, and management of wildlife. [Paras 9, 10, 46].

Held: The approach has to be ecocentric and not anthropocentric – The approach has to be nature-centred where humans are a part of nature and non-humans have intrinsic value – National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2012 and the Centrally Sponsored Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats Scheme, 2009 are centred on the principle of ecocentrism. [Para 69, 91] 

Held : Worldwide as well as in our jurisprudence, the law has developed and evolved emphasizing on the restoration of the damaged ecological system – A reversal of environmental damage in conformity with the principle under Article 8(f) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 (CBD) is what is required – The focus has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar as possible to the specific one that was damaged – Bringing the culprits to face the proceedings is a different matter and restoration of the damage already done is a different matter – The State cannot run away from its responsibilities to restore the damage done to the forest – The State, apart from preventing such acts in the future, should take immediate steps for restoration of the damage already done; undertake an exercise for determining the valuation of the damage done and recover it from the persons found responsible for causing such a damage. [Paras 156, 157 and 158]