In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union Of India

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1325
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN RE : CORBETT
I.A. NO. 20650 of 2023
(CEC REPORT No. 3 of 2023)
WITH
I.A. NO. 75033 OF 2023
AND
I.A. No. 199355 of 2024
(CEC Report No. 16 of 2024)
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD … PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

IN THE MATTER OF:
GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL … APPLICANT

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.11.17
17:42:19 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



INDEX

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................ 3
(A) The importance of tigers and their conservation in
India……………………………………………………………………….5
(B) Tiger safaris and their regulatory scheme ........................ 9
(C) Corbett Tiger Reserve ..................................................... 13
(D) Directions issued by this court in its judgment and order
th
dated 6 March 2024 .............................................................. 14
II. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS ....................... 22
III. THE EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT .......................... 25
(A) Recommendations with respect to Corbett Tiger
Reserve …………………………………………………………………27
(B) General Recommendations ............................................. 29
IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .................................... 48
V. CONCLUSION ........................................................... 52

Page 2 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI

I. BACKGROUND
th
1. This Court, in its judgment and order dated 6 March
1
2024 passed in the present proceedings [to which one of us,
Gavai, J. (as he then was) was a member], 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 and
order, 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, this
Court directed constitution of an Expert Committee that would
carry out an in-depth inquiry, and make recommendations
based on various aspects as laid down in the said judgment and
th
order dated 6 March 2024, specifically including – restoration,

1
(2025) 2 SCC 641, hereinafter referred to as “T.N. Godavarman”
Page 3 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



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.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Expert Committee
was constituted by the MoEF&CC vide an Office Memorandum
th
dated 15 March 2024. The Expert Committee has submitted its
report and the copies of the said report were supplied to the
parties.

3. We have heard Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus
Curiae , Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General and Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, applicant in person with
regard to their contentions concerning the said report. After
considering their contentions, by way of the present Judgment,
we propose to issue directions in continuation of those issued by
th
this Court vide judgment and order dated 6 March 2024 passed
in the present proceedings.
4. However, before we proceed further, it would be appropriate
to recapitulate the relevant background the tiger
vis-à-vis
Page 4 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



population in India, the Government’s conservational efforts, the
significance of Corbett National Park, and the directions issued
th
by this Court on 6 March 2024.
(a) The importance of tigers and their conservation
in India
5. The tiger, as the apex predator of its ecosystem in India,
plays a central role in maintaining the overall ecological balance,
2
and regulating natural processes in the forest. Its survival
ensures the health of forest ecosystems, biodiversity, water
3
security, and overall climate stability. Presently, however, tiger
populations survive within less than 7% of their historical range,
restricted to fragmented habitats spread across 12 recognized
Tiger Conservation Landscapes ( hereinafter referred to as “TCLs” )
4
in Asia. Of these, 6 priority TCLs for long-term conservation are
located in the Indian subcontinent. India assumes a special
responsibility, as it is home to more than 80% of the world’s
free-ranging tiger population, representing over 60% of the

2
J. Terborgh, “Diversity and the Topical Rain Forest” (1991, Freeman New
York, xii + 242 pp.).
3
M. Sunquist, K.U. Karanth and F. Sunquist, “Ecology, behavior and
resilience of the tiger and its conservation needs” (1999, Pages 5-18).
4
J. Goodrich, A. Lynam, D. Miquelle, H. Wibisono, K. Kawanishi, A.
Pattanavibool, S. Htun, T. Tempa, J. Karki, Y. Jhala and U. Karanth,
“Panthera tigris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species” (2015).
Page 5 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



5
species’ genetic diversity. The country’s contribution in terms of
conservation efforts, is therefore, pivotal to the objectives of the
Global Tiger Recovery Plan, which was adopted by the world
6
leaders at St. Petersburg in 2010.
6. In India, tigers inhabit a wide variety of habitats ranging
from the high mountains, mangrove swamps, tall grasslands, to
dry and moist deciduous forests, as well as evergreen and shola
forest systems. By virtue of this, the tiger also acts as an
umbrella species for a majority of eco-regions in the Indian
7
subcontinent. Tigers, however, also require large undisturbed
forested landscapes with ample prey to raise young cubs and
8
maintain long-term genetic and demographic viability. With
India’s burgeoning population, and the corresponding
ever-expanding demand for land, conserving this species
requires innovative approaches to land-use planning that can

5
E. Dinerstein, C. Loucks, E. Wikramanayake, J. Ginsberg, E. Sanderson,
J. Seidensticker, J. Forrest, G. Bryja, A. Heydlauff, S. Klenzendorf, P.
Leimgruber, J. Mills, T.G. O'Brien, M. Shrestha, R. Simons and M. Songer,
“The fate of wild tigers” (2007).
6
S. Mondol, K.U. Karanth and U. Ramakrishnan, “Why the Indian
subcontinent holds the key to global tiger recovery” (2009).
7
J. Seidensticker, C. McDougal, N. Dunstone and M.L. Gorman, “Tiger
predatory behaviour, ecology and conservation” (1993, Pages 105-125).
8
K.U. Karanth and M.E. Sunquist, “Prey selection by tiger, leopard and
dhole in tropical forests”, 64(4) Journal of Animal Ecology 439, 445 (1995).
Page 6 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



maintain connectivity between tiger source populations in a
9
‘metapopulation’ framework.
7. In 1973, the Government of India launched its pioneering
initiative – “Project Tiger”, to optimise efforts towards conserving
the country’s national animal. The Project aimed to leverage the
functional role of the tiger in its habitat, and its unique
charisma, to garner resources and public support for conserving
‘representative ecosystems’. From 9 tiger reserves (spanning
18,278 km) in its initial years, the expanse of Project Tiger has
increased to 51 reserves (covering 72,749 km, at present), in over
18 states. Cumulatively, this accounts for roughly 2.23% of the
10
geographical area of our country. Pertinently, these tiger
reserves are constituted on a ‘ core/buffer ’ strategy. The core area
has the legal status of a national park or a sanctuary, whereas
the buffer or peripheral areas are a mix of forest and non-forest
land, managed as a hybrid multiple-use area. The Project Tiger
aims to foster an exclusive tiger agenda in the core areas, with

9
Y.V. Jhala, Q. Quereshi and A.K. Nayak, “Status of Tigers, copredators
and prey in India, 2018. National Tiger Conservation Authority,
Government of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun
(eds. 2020, p. 6 – ISBN No. 81-85496-50-1).
10
National Tiger Conservation Authority of India,
https://ntca.gov.in/about-us/#project-tiger .
Page 7 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



an inclusive people-oriented agenda in the buffer zones of the
reserve. The Project also paves way specifically for conservation
of tiger population in designated tiger reserves. Despite this aim,
many Tiger Reserves and Protected Areas in India are analogous
to small islands in a vast sea of ecologically unsustainable land
11
of varying degrees. Many tiger populations are confined within
small ‘Protected Areas’, with some having habitat corridors that
12
permit tiger movement between them. However, most corridor
habitats in India are not Protected Areas, and hence, are
degrading due to unsustainable human use and developmental
projects in those region.
8. The National Tiger Conservation Authority ( hereinafter
referred to as “NTCA” ), constituted under Section 38-L of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as “WLP
Act” ), also functions in a similar domain, focussing on tiger
conservation work in India. The scope of NTCA’s work ranges
from on-ground protection initiatives, science-based monitoring
of tigers and their habitat using latest technological tools,

11
Y.V. Jhala, Q. Quereshi and A.K. Nayak, “Status of Tigers, copredators
and prey in India, 2018. National Tiger Conservation Authority,
Government of India, New Delhi and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun
(eds. 2020, p. 6 – ISBN No. 81-85496-50-1).
12
Ibid.
Page 8 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



independent assessment of tiger reserves with Management
Effectiveness Evaluation framework, financial and technical
support to tiger reserves, creating inviolate spaces for wildlife
while ensuring community development, to fostering
13
international co-operation. The objectives of the NTCA include:
(i) providing statutory authority to Project Tiger so that
compliance of its directives become legal; (ii) fostering
accountability of both the Centre and the States, in management
of Tiger Reserves, by providing a basis for MoU with States within
India’s federal structure; (iii) providing an oversight mechanism
by Parliament; and (iv) addressing livelihood interests of local
14
people in areas surrounding Tiger Reserves.
(b) Tiger Safaris and their regulatory scheme
9. The concept of a ‘Tiger Safari’ in the wild, was introduced
for the first time by the Central Government in its Tourism
Guidelines, 2012. This provided for the creation of Tiger Safaris
in the buffer area of tiger reserves, which experience large
tourism footfall. The Guidelines also prescribed the

13
National Tiger Conservation Authority of India,
https://ntca.gov.in/about-us/#our-work .
14
National Tiger Conservation Authority of India,
https://ntca.gov.in/about-us/#ntca .
Page 9 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



establishment of interpretation and awareness centres in these
buffer areas, to foster awareness on conservation efforts and the
ecological balance they seek to protect, to in turn, garner public
support. The local Panchayati Raj institutions were tasked with
running these newly established centres. The establishment of
such ‘safaris’ in the buffer zone demonstrably generates
employment for the local people and promotes co-existence
between wildlife and humans.
10. Until 2016, the regulatory regime only recognized safaris as
being an ex-situ mode of conservation. With the 2016 Guidelines,
the focus shifted to in-situ conservation. These guidelines
prescribed the basic criteria and procedure to be followed in the
buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves for dealing with the
establishment, management and administration of Tiger Safaris.
Clause 8 provides that, tourism activities in the tiger reserves
are regulated by the normative guidelines on tourism issued by
the NTCA as well as by the prescriptions on eco-tourism as
contained in the Tiger Conservation Plan ( hereinafter referred to
as “TCP” ) of the tiger reserves.
11. Clause 10 of the 2016 Guidelines provides that the location
of the tiger safari shall be identified preferably in the buffer (not
Page 10 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



falling in notified National Parks and/or Wildlife Sanctuary) or
peripheral area of the tiger reserve, based on the
recommendations of a committee comprising of members from
the NTCA, Central Zoo Authority ( hereinafter referred to as
“CZA” ), Forest Department of the concerned State, an
experienced tiger biologist/scientist/conservationist and a
representative nominated by the Chief Wildlife Warden of the
concerned State. It also provides that tiger dispersal routes shall
be avoided in all circumstances. Mandating that the area of a
Safari Park should be as large as possible, it also prescribes that
the minimum area of a tiger safari should be 40 hectares,
extendable as per requirements. It describes that the topography
for the safari should be undulating and well-draining, without
steep slopes; and that the vegetation maintained in the Park
should be indigenous, the density of flora regulated according to
needs and with the objective of providing a naturalistic effect. It
should also provide shelters and withdrawal areas for animals.
It further prescribes that the entire safari area should be
surrounded by a suitable peripheral chain link fence. The said
chain link fence should be of a minimum height of 5 meters with
a suitable both way overhang at the top or as prescribed by the
Page 11 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



CZA from time to time. It also provides that a buffer zone (strip)
of about 5 meters width be provided around the fenced area and
requires the creation of a watch tower of about 5 meters in
height. It also provides for the sensitization of visitors at
designated ‘Visitor Centres’.
12. The NTCA issued fresh guidelines in November 2019. These
2019 Guidelines are similar to the 2016 Guidelines – with the
exception of Clause 9 of the former, which provides that the
selection of the animal shall be done in conformity with Section
38-I of the WLP Act after due approval of the CZA. Clause 9 was
disapproved by this Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra). It was
held that the 2019 Guidelines, which permitted the sourcing of
animals from zoos was totally contrary to the purpose of tiger
conservation, and to that extent the offending provisions in the
2019 Guidelines were quashed. It was further clarified that since
the establishment of Tiger Safaris would virtually be for ‘ in-situ ’
conservation and protection of the species, it is the NTCA that
shall have the final authority.


Page 12 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



(c) Corbett Tiger Reserve
13. 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. The remaining area of 466.32 sq. km. forms the
buffer zone, with 306.90 sq. km. in Kalagarh and 159.4 sq. km.
in the Ramnagar forest divisions. The forest within this Reserve
serves as a vital corridor connecting the reserve with the Rajaji
National Park. It maintains a high density of tigers due to its
abundant prey base and functions as a key contributor to tiger
conservation, facilitating dispersal into neighbouring protected
areas such as Lansdowne, Terai West, Amangarh, and
Ramnagar forest divisions. It is recognized that Corbett hosts the
largest tiger population within any single protected area globally.
Page 13 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



Therefore, its position in the Terai Landscape ensures long-term
continuity of tigers, provided there are serious efforts by the
respective Governments to safeguard the connectivity between
different units. It is also an extremely rich habitat for an array of
bird species, with almost 50% of the bird species of the
subcontinent being found in the reserve, of which several are
15
included in the lists of threatened and endangered species.
(d) Directions issued by this Court in judgment and
th
order dated 6 March 2024 in the present
proceedings
14. These proceedings may be understood as a continuation of
this Court’s findings and consideration, in T.N.Godavarman
(supra) which arose from an application filed by one Shri Gaurav
Kumar Bansal. After considering various reports and CEC
Reports (including the CEC Report No. 30/2022), this Court
th
passed the following directions on 6 March 2024:
“ 178.1 . The Safaris which are already
existing and the one under construction at
Pakhrau will not be disturbed. However,
insofar as the Safari at ‘Pakhrau’ is
concerned, we direct the State of
Uttarakhand to relocate or establish a

15
V.B. Mathur, A.K. Nayak and N.A. Ansari, “Fourth Cycle of Management
Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) of Tiger Reserves in India, 2018”. National
Tiger Conservation Authority and Wildlife Institute of India, Minsitry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, p. 100.
Page 14 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



rescue centre in the vicinity of the ‘Tiger
Safari’. The directions which would be
issued by this Court with regard to
establishment and maintenance of the
‘Tiger Safaris’ upon receipt of the
recommendations of the Committee which
we are directing to be appointed would
also be applicable to the existing Safaris
including the Safari to be established at
Pakhrau.
178.2 . The 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 CEC; and
(iv) an officer of the MoEF&CC not below
the rank of Joint Secretary as its Member
Secretary.
We however clarify that the Committee
would be entitled to co-opt any other
authority including a representative of
CZA and also take the services of the
experts in the field, if found necessary.
178.3. The said Committee will:
178.3.1. recommend the measures for
restoration of the damages, in the local in
situ environment to its original state
before the damage was caused;
178.3.2. assess the environmental
damage caused in the Corbett Tiger
Reserve (CTR) and quantify the costs for
restoration;
178.3.3. identify the persons/officials
responsible for such a damage. Needless
to state that the State shall recover the
cost so quantified from the
persons/delinquent officers found
Page 15 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



responsible for the same. The cost so
recovered shall be exclusively used for the
purpose of restoration of the damage
caused to the environment.
178.3.4. specify how the funds so collected
be utilized for active restoration of
ecological damage.
178.4. The aforesaid Committee, inter
alia, shall consider and recommend:
178.4.1. The question as to whether Tiger
Safaris shall be permitted in the buffer
area or fringe area.
178.4.2. If such Safaris can be permitted,
then what should be the guidelines for
establishing such Safaris?
178.4.3. 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.
Needles to state that 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.
Page 16 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



178.4.4. 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 eco-tourism. The
type of construction that should be
permissible in such resorts would be in
tune with the natural environment.
178.4.5. 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.
178.4.6. 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.
178.4.7. 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.
178.4.8. The steps to be taken for
scrupulously implementing such
recommendations.
178.5. 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.
178.6. 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.
Page 17 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



178.7 . We will consider issuing
appropriate directions after the
recommendations are received by this
Court from the aforesaid Committee. We
request the Committee to give its
preliminary report within a period of three
months from today.
178.8. The CBI shall submit a report to
this Court within a period of three months
from today. We request the learned ASG to
communicate this order to the Director,
CBI.
178.9. 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.”
15. Thus, pursuant to the aforesaid judgement and order dated
th
6 March 2024, three independent proceedings came to be
initiated viz. , (a) CBI investigation; (b) disciplinary proceedings
against delinquent officers in Corbett; and (c) the Expert
Committee which was to consider various aspects detailed in
paragraphs 178.3 and 178.4 of the judgment. As mentioned
hereinabove, the present proceedings are a culmination of these
directions – specifically to consider the recommendations
Page 18 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



received from the Expert Committee, and to accordingly pass
further directions.
16. For the sake of completeness, before delving into these
recommendations, it would be relevant to refer to a short
summary of the CBI investigation carried out, so also the
disciplinary proceedings conducted against delinquent officers
in Corbett.
th
17. As per the judgement and order dated 6 March 2024 in
the present proceedings, the CBI submitted its status report and
rd
the same was taken on record vide order dated 23 July 2024.
Further, this Court granted 6 months’ time to complete the
investigation and with a view to ensure that the investigation
progresses without any delay directed the CBI to file a
subsequent status report after a period of 3 months.
Consequently, a second status report was taken on record vide
th
order dated 20 November 2024 and the CBI was again directed
to submit another status report after a period of 3 months. On
th
19 March 2025, the third status report was taken on record
and CBI was granted 3 months for filing its final report.
Page 19 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



18. After the CBI submitted its final report, this Court passed
th
the following order on 29 May 2025 thereby disposing of the
applications insofar as directions issued to the CBI were
concerned:
“1. This Court, vide judgment dated
06.03.2024 passed in I.A. No. 20650 of
2023 in the present proceedings 1, had
directed the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) to conduct an
investigation and submit a report to this
Court.
2. The CBI had from time to time
submitted its status report and this Court
was satisfied with the progress of the
investigation.
3. It is now informed that the field
investigation of case is complete and the
chargesheet/final report under Section
173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 for the commission of offences under
Sections 120-B, 218, 409, 467, 471 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 13(2)
read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention and
Corruption Act, 1988; Section 26-1(f) & (h)
of the Indian Forest Act, 1927; Section
2(iv) (read with Section 3A & 3B) of the
Forest Conservation Act,1980 and
Sections 27(2)(a), 27(4) & 35(6) read with
Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 has been filed against the following
accused public servants, namely;
(i) Shri Kishan Chand, the then Deputy
Conservator of Forest/Divisional Forest
Officer, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve
Division, Lansdowne.
(ii) Shri Brij Bihari Sharma, the then
Forest Range Officer, Sonanadi &
Page 20 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



Pakhro Range, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve
Division, Lansdowne.
(iii) Shri Rahul, the then Director,
Corbett Tiger Reserve, Ramnagar,
Nainital.
(iv) Shri Akhilesh Tiwari, the then Dy
Conservator of Forest/Divisional Forest
Officer, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve
Division, Lansdowne.
(v) Shri Mathura Singh Mavdi, Deputy
Ranger, Pakhro Range, Kalagarh Tiger
Reserve Division, Lansdowne.
(vi) Shri Surendra Singh, the then
Forester/Van Daroga, Pakhro Range,
Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division,
Lansdowne.
(vii) Shri Sandeep Arya, the then Forest
Guard, Sonanadi Range, Kalagarh Tiger
Reserve Division, Lansdowne.
(viii) Shri Rajesh Rawat, the then
Wireless Operator (Daily wages), Pakhro
Range, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division,
Lansdowne.
4. Since the CBI has brought the matter to
its logical end, these applications shall
stand disposed of insofar as the directions
issued to the CBI are concerned.”

19. Next, regarding disciplinary proceedings conducted against
delinquent officers in Corbett, the State of Uttarakhand filed a
Status report pointing out various actions taken against the
officers of the Forest Department. This Court granted 3 months’
time to file further Status report on the Disciplinary proceedings.
th
Further, on 19 March 2025, this Court expressed its
discontentment with the pace of the disciplinary proceedings
Page 21 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



regarding the action taken against IFS officers whose dereliction
of duties resulted/contributed to the ecological damage in the
Corbett Tiger Reserve. Hence, by way of the said order, this Court
directed the State of Uttarakhand to conclude the departmental
proceedings with respect to all concerned officers within a period
of 3 months. The final report regarding the departmental
proceedings is yet to be submitted by the State of Uttarakhand.
II. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
20. Before we consider the recommendations made by the
Expert Committee, it will be relevant to refer to certain statutory
provisions of the WLP Act and the interpretation given to them
by this Court in T.N.Godavarman (supra).
21. A perusal of the sections in Chapter IV, IV-A and IV-B of
the WLP Act reveals that diverse measures have been provided
for the preservation of Protected Areas. The definition of
“protected area” as defined under sub-section (24-A) of Section
2 of the WLP Act only includes a National Park, a sanctuary, a
conservation reserve or a community reserve, which are notified
under Sections 18, 35, 36-A and 36-C of the WLP Act.
Page 22 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



22. As per the Section 38-V of the WLP Act, a tiger reserve has
two parts namely Core and Buffer. The relevant portion of the
provision is extracted below:
“[…] Explanation – For the purposes of this
section, the expression “tiger reserve”
includes –
(i) core or critical tiger habitat areas of
National Parks and sanctuaries, where it
has been established, on the basis of
scientific and objective criteria, that such
areas are required to be kept as inviolate
for the purposes of tiger conservation,
without affecting the rights of the
Scheduled Tribes or such other forest
dwellers, and notified as such by the State
Government in consultation with an Expert
Committee constituted for the purpose;
(ii) buffer or peripheral area consisting of
the area peripheral to critical tiger habitat
or core area, identified and established in
accordance with the provision contained in
Explanation (i) above, where a lesser degree
of habitat protection is required to ensure
the integrity of the critical tiger habitat with
adequate dispersal for tiger species, and
which aim at promoting co-existence
between wildlife and human activity with
due recognition of the livelihood,
developmental, social and cultural rights of
the local people, wherein the limits of such
areas are determined on the basis of the
scientific and objective criteria in
consultation with the concerned Gram
Sabha and an Expert Committee
constituted for the purpose.”
Page 23 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



23. In T.N. Godavarman (supra), this Court undertook a
detailed review of the statutory and regulatory scheme applicable
to Tiger Reserves and establishment of Tiger Safaris and
specifically held that:
“ 49 . A perusal of the entire scheme of the
WLP Act read with the Statement of objects
and reasons would clearly reveal that the
entire emphasis is on “conservation,
protection and management of the
wildlife”. The WLP Act also provides for the
matters connected therewith or ancillary or
incidental thereto for the conservation,
protection and management of wildlife. It
also emphasizes on ensuring the ecological
and environmental security of the country.
50. …. the harmonious construction of
the various provisions of the WLP Act
would reveal 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 .
64. … The provisions contained in
Chapter IVA lay a specific emphasis on
the protection of tigers and other
habitats in the tiger reserve . The
provisions contained therein are in
addition to the provisions contained for
sanctuaries and National Parks”

(emphasis supplied)

24. Since this Court has already reviewed and considered the
vast statutory and regulatory landscape that exists relating to
Page 24 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



Tiger Reserves in T.N.Godavarman (supra), reproduction or
repetition of the same would not be necessary.
III. THE EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT
25. Pursuant to the directions contained in paragraph 178.2
th
of the judgement dated 6 March 2024, the MoEF&CC vide its
th
Office Memorandum dated 15 March 2024 constituted the
Committee with the following members:
(a) Shri Chandra Prakash Goyal, Member CEC as the
Nominee of Central Empowered Committee - Member;
(b) Dr. Vaibhav C Mathur, Deputy Inspector General of
Forests, National Tiger Conservation Authority –
Member;
(c) Professor Qamar Qureshi, then Scientist G, Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun – Member; and
(d) Shri R Raghu Prasad, Inspector General of Forests,
Wildlife – Member Secretary.
In addition, after the first meeting, the Committee co-opted the
following two officials:
Page 25 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



(e) Dr. SP Yadav, former Member Secretary, National Tiger
Conservation Authority and Interim Director General,
International Big Cat Alliance; and
(f)
Dr Sanjay Shukla, then Member Secretary, CZA.
26. It can be seen from the Report of the Expert Committee that
th
it held meetings on various dates i.e., on 28 March 2024,
th th th
30 April 2024, 20 May 2024, 12 June 2024, and
th
25 June 2024. It can also be seen that Committee went for a
th st
field visit from 30 May 2024 to 1 June 2024 to inspect the
entire area affected by different activities undertaken by the
officials of Corbett Tiger Reserve in the name of establishment of
the Pakhrau Tiger Safari. After undertaking a detailed study of
numerous reports and documents, holding meetings, and
consulting experts as well as Field Directors of various Tiger
Reserves, the Committee has made (i) specific recommendations
with respect to Corbett Tiger Reserve and (ii) general
recommendations with respect to Tiger Reserves in India, which
are considered as under:


Page 26 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



(a) Recommendations with respect to Corbett Tiger
Reserve

27. The Committee has made specific recommendations with
respect to Corbett Tiger Reserve, as per the terms of reference by
this Court contained in paragraph 178.3 of the judgment and
th
order dated 6 March 2024. These recommendations are as
follows:
27.1. Measures for restoration of the damages, in the
local in situ environment to its original state before the
damage was caused : Pursuant to the Committee consulting the
experts from the Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal
(“IIFM”), it recommended the demolition of the above-ground
structures, excavation of hard pan material, safe disposal of
debris, filling up of excavated area with soil followed by site
preparation, plantation and maintenance. The Committee in its
report states that there is a requirement to install some pipes
inside few culverts on the service road for maintaining
hydrological flows. It is recommended that Hume pipes may be
fixed up in such areas and the total costs for in-situ ecological
restoration is estimated to be Rs. 4,30,89,110 (around Rs. 4.30
Cr).
Page 27 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



27.2. To Assess the environmental damage caused in the
Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) and quantify the costs for
restoration : Based on deliberations with experts from IIFM
Bhopal, the Committee recommended that the assessment in
monetary terms, of the ecological damage for affected areas
should be confined to sites impacted by the various activities
undertaken by the forest officials for establishing a tiger safari
at Pakhrau. According to the report, the total area of ecosystem
damage is likely to be in 118.19 ha. As per the forest diversion
proposal for the safari project, though compensatory
afforestation has been proposed to address this damage, the
Committee has stated that this effort will evidently fall short in
fully capturing the benefits of the original ecosystem, but its
benefits will accrue gradually over time. The report further
states that the potential ecological loss from safari project
activities in affected areas is assessed in monetary terms as Rs.
22,95,06,306 (around Rs. 23 Cr) with conceivable net market
value of felled timber as Rs. 6.80 Cr. Therefore, according to the
Committee the total damage costs are estimated to be about
Rs. 29.8 Cr.
Page 28 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



27.3. On identifying the persons/officials responsible
for such a damage, with the consequent direction that the
State will recover the costs so quantified from the
delinquent officer found responsible and use it exclusively
towards restoration of the damage caused by the
environment: As the CBI is effectively investigating the issue,
the Committee deemed it fit to not assess the same issue, to
avoid overlapping of responses.
27.4. On how the funds so collected be utilized for active
restoration of ecological damage : Upon assessment of the
environment damage and quantification of the costs towards
ecological restoration supported by 2 experts from IIFM Bhopal,
the Committee has stated that the amount so collected for
restorations 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 along
with data which is to be uploaded on the relevant dashboard of
the CEC.
(b) General Recommendations
28. We will now consider the various general recommendations
made by the Expert Committee, in accordance with the scope set
Page 29 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



th
out by this Court in paragraph 178.4 of its judgment dated 6
March 2024.
29. On whether Tiger Safaris shall be permitted in the
buffer area or fringe area
29.1. The Committee in its Report has differentiated the
diversity of wildlife tourism experiences with encountering
animals in their natural habitats and animals in controlled
environments (i.e., zoos where human intervention maintains
the surroundings), each shaped by varying degrees of natural
authenticity and human influence. The Committee after
th
considering the Gazette notification dated 15 October 2012, the
th
minutes of ninth meeting of NTCA dated 19 June 2013,
Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safari in Buffer and Fringe Areas
of Tiger Reserves issued by NTCA in November 2019, and
provisions of Section 38-V of the WLP Act, has arrived at certain
conclusions. The Committee has traced the intention of the
Government of India and the NTCA, to establish Tiger Safari in
the buffer or fringe areas. While doing so, tiger dispersal routes
must be avoided in all circumstances, as stated in the
Guidelines. It is categorically stated that a forest area in the
buffer zone, would definitely be a part of such dispersal routes
Page 30 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



of tigers and other wildlife. The Committee also found that the
density of tigers in forests under buffer area, is in fact quite high.
29.2. Based on these findings, the Expert Committee has
made certain recommendations: that as per the proviso to
Section 33(a), Explanation (ii) of Section 38-V(4) the WLP Act,
th
and the judgment and order dated 6 March 2024, Tiger Safaris
should be strictly prohibited in core or critical tiger habitat areas.
It further recommended that any Tiger Safari may only be set up
on non-forest land or degraded forest land within the buffer,
provided these locations do not form part of a tiger corridor. The
Committee also emphasized that the establishment of a Tiger
Safari shall be permitted solely in conjunction with a fully
operational rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers,
specifically designed to care for conflict, injured, or abandoned
animals.
30. Guidelines for Tiger Safaris
30.1. Since the Expert Committee has recommended that
Tiger Safaris may continue, in the buffer and fringe areas, it has
also evolved guidelines accordingly.
30.2. In its Report, the Committee states that the
‘ Guidelines to Establish Tiger Safari in Buffer and Fringe
Page 31 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



Areas of Tiger Reserves 2019 ’ issued by the NTCA should form
the basis for any establishment of Tiger Safaris. The directions
of this Court in T.N.Godavarman (supra) with regard to
sourcing of animals should be strictly adhered to. Specifically,
the Committee recommended that only animals rescued from the
Tiger Reserve or the same landscape, particularly conflict
animals, should be housed in the Safaris. The committee has
advised that a rescue centre, integrated with each Tiger Safari,
should provide essential veterinary support and facilitate the
treatment and care of such animals. The management of each
Safari is to remain under the control of the Field Director of the
concerned reserve with supervision from the Chief Wildlife
Warden. Financial earnings from the Safari should be directed
back into the Tiger Conservation Foundations. The Committee
further stressed the importance of design measures to prevent
any contact between wild and captive populations, mandated
approval for enclosure designs by the CZA and called for the
development of carrying capacity norms. Environmentally
friendly vehicle options like solar, hybrid, or electric vehicles are
to be promoted and their numbers regulated, and a strict policy
Page 32 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



of zero discharge of waste water from the Safari must be
enforced.
31. Permissible and prohibited activities in the buffer and
fringe areas of the Tiger Reserve

31.1. The Committee outlined a detailed set of prohibited
and regulated activities for buffer and fringe zones of Tiger
Reserves. Prohibited activities include commercial mining,
establishing sawmills, polluting industries, commercial firewood
use for businesses, major hydroelectric projects, introduction of
exotic species, use or production of hazardous substances, low-
flying tourism aircraft (including drones, which must fly at least
300 meters above obstacles), discharge of waste into natural
habitats and unauthorized felling of trees. On the other hand, it
specified that regulated activities could include the
establishment of hotels and resorts as per approved tourism
plans that accommodate wildlife movement, commercial use and
harvesting of natural water resources by master plan, fencing
premises of hotels and lodges, widening roads, permitting
vehicular movement at night and protective measures for hill
slopes and river banks in keeping with plans.
Page 33 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



31.2. Additionally, the Committee recommended that the
TCP should clearly define zones within the buffer area where new
tourism infrastructure may be developed, considering factors
like road access, village proximity and animal corridors. It has
suggested that all new tourism infrastructure must comply with
Eco-sensitive Zone notifications under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. It further recommended that eco-friendly
tourism facilities could be allowed on non-forest land within
buffer zones and such zones must be clearly delineated as part
of the TCP and the zonal Master Plan for Eco-sensitive Zones
( hereinafter referred to as “ESZ” ) .
32. Whether resorts can be permitted within the close
proximity of protected areas and restrictions thereof
32.1. The Committee expressed concern that ecotourism in
many tiger reserves continues to resemble mass tourism and
lacks adequate regulation, despite the Supreme Court’s directive
16
in Ajay Dubey v. National Tiger Conservation Authority
that tourism activities in core and critical tiger reserve areas
must adhere strictly to NTCA Guidelines.

16
(2019) 11 SCC 538
Page 34 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



32.2. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that new
eco-friendly resorts may be permitted within buffer zones but
must be strictly prohibited in identified tiger corridors. It further
encouraged the promotion of homestays and community-
managed establishments, coupled with incentives to support
such initiatives. To mitigate environmental impact, zero waste
practices were mandated as compulsory. The Committee also
advocated for the entire Tiger Reserve and its corresponding ESZ
to be designated as “Silence Zones” under the Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and prohibited the use of
mobile phones within tourism zones of core habitats to minimize
disturbance to wildlife. Strict enforcement of vehicular carrying
capacity limits as prescribed by NTCA was emphasized,
alongside a complete phase-out of night stay facilities for tourists
in core areas and an outright ban on night tourism. Additionally,
for reserves where roads cut through core or critical tiger
habitats, stringent night-time traffic restrictions were
recommended, permitting only emergency and ambulance
vehicles to operate from dusk to dawn.
Page 35 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



33. Permissible noise levels and the distance from the
boundary of the protected forest for which restrictions on
noise level will be applicable
33.1.
The Committee reiterated its recommendation that
the entire Tiger Reserve, along with the ESZ of the protected
areas included within it, should be notified as a ‘Silence Zone’
under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
In situations where the ESZ of the Tiger Reserve has not yet been
officially notified, the proposed ESZ should be considered for this
designation. Furthermore, if neither a notified nor a proposed
ESZ exists, a default ESZ should be applied to ensure
appropriate restrictions on noise levels around the protected
forest boundaries.
34. Measures for effective management of Tiger Reserves,
on a pan-India basis
34.1. Strict Regulatory Regime: The Committee
recommended that States should be directed to prepare TCPs
within the six months. It has suggested that financial assistance
under the Project Tiger component of the Central Scheme for
Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats (
hereinafter referred
to as “CSS-IDWH” ) should be mandatorily linked to an approved
Page 36 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



TCP to ensure effective resource utilization. Forest areas situated
in buffer and corridor regions identified within the TCP should
be managed in alignment with the plan to maintain consistency
between forestry operations and wildlife conservation priorities.
Forestry operations in buffer forest lands ought to be integrated
into the TCP through consultations with the State Forest
Department’s working plans. The Committee highlighted that
Critical Tiger Habitats notified under the WLP Act, should be
accorded equivalence with Critical Wildlife Habitats as defined
by the Forest Rights Act, recognizing both scientific and
ecological significance alongside traditional forest dwellers’
rights. It recommended that tiger carrying capacity be calculated
as per existing norms within the TCP to guide habitat
interventions effectively. Furthermore, while Compensatory
Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority
( hereinafter referred to as “CAMPA” ) funds may continue to
support voluntary village relocation, it was suggested that
dedicated funding should be earmarked specifically to uphold
inviolate core and critical tiger habitats, extending financial
assistance also to villages in buffer zones and tiger dispersal
routes.
Page 37 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



34.2. Proper Human Resource Management: The
Committee advised that States should prioritize filling vacancies
at all levels within tiger reserves, identifying this as a critical
factor limiting protection and scientific efforts. It proposed
establishing separate cadres for veterinarians and wildlife
biologists to provide the technical expertise needed for the
expanded scientific mandate of tiger conservation. Additionally,
a cadre of sociologists could be formed to engage continuously
with fringe communities, fostering a social fence to support
conservation goals. The Committee underlined the importance of
ongoing capacity building for forest frontline staff, supported by
financial assistance as mandated by relevant legislation. It
emphasized focusing on emerging thematic areas such as
rewilding orphaned or habituated tigers, scientific habitat
management and strict adherence to NTCA Standard Operating
Procedures and guidelines. To attract and retain personnel in
tiger reserves, incremental increases in project and ration
allowances indexed to Dearness Allowance and aligned with
paramilitary force rates are suggested. Ex-gratia payments on
par with paramilitary forces is recommended to be provided in
the event of death in the line of duty. Infrastructure at guard
Page 38 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



camps should include essential amenities such as clean water,
safe housing, sanitary facilities, communication tools and first
aid, with separate provisions for female staff. Family
accommodation consistent with standards for defence and police
personnel in remote postings should be adequately provided,
with enhanced central government support suggested for
establishing residential accommodations and field hostels. Given
the hazardous conditions, insurance coverage for all field
personnel, including contractual and daily wage workers, was
recommended, along with mandatory enrolment in government
health schemes and consideration of free medical care for
injured staff. The Committee also suggested recognition through
state awards and family support equivalent to those granted to
civil police personnel for employees who lose their lives in
service.
34.3. Timely And Adequate Funding Support: The
Committee underscored the necessity of timely and sufficient
funding for effective management of tiger reserves, cautioning
that delays impede conservation efforts and adversely affect the
numerous casual workers employed in these reserves. It
recommended a comprehensive overhaul of fund release
Page 39 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



mechanisms, allowing Tiger Conservation Foundations to receive
financial assistance directly under the Project Tiger component
of the CSS-IDWH. Revenue generated by tiger reserves should be
reinvested into their respective Tiger Conservation Foundations
to address management issues within the reserves and their
zones of influence.
34.4. Provisions of Arms to Forest Officials And Staff:
The Committee proposed that firearms be provided to all forest
officers from Beat Guard to Forester level on a phased basis,
targeting 50% coverage within three years and 75% within five
years. The selection of firearms should reflect local threat
assessments and be comparable to police forces operating in the
same region. Deputy Rangers and Range Officers were
recommended to receive pistols or revolvers similar to those
issued to police officers of corresponding ranks. Licensing
requirements should be waived for the firearms assigned to
forest personnel. Detailed operational guidelines for firearm use
should be established by states, coupled with legal immunity for
personnel under relevant national security legislation. The
Committee further suggested that states should consider raising
specialized Forest Battalions deployed under the operational
Page 40 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



command of Forest Officers, potentially drawn from police units
and provided with advanced jungle warfare training to reinforce
forest department capabilities.
34.5. Strengthening Forest & Wildlife Crime Prevention
And Investigation: It is recommended that the Wildlife Crime
Control Bureau, Field Directors of Tiger Reserves, and Chief
Wildlife Wardens be empowered to access Call Detail Records
(CDRs) and conduct surveillance investigations related to forest
and wildlife offences, acknowledging that only a few states
currently have this provision. The Committee urged the
establishment of dedicated Wildlife Crime Cells and Special
Prosecution Wings within forest departments across all states,
modelled after successful frameworks such as Madhya Pradesh’s
Special Task Force. Enhancing collaboration between police and
forest departments is encouraged along with the creation and
adequate funding of Special Tiger Protection Forces in sensitive
tiger reserves. The development and mandatory enforcement of
Standard Operating Procedures for forensic involvement in
wildlife crimes by state Forensic Science Laboratories was also
proposed.
Page 41 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



34.6. Setting Up Fast Track Courts/Benches For Forest
& Wildlife Crimes: To ensure expeditious justice, the
Committee recommended establishing fast track or dedicated
courts specifically tasked with forest and wildlife crime cases.
34.7. Proper Human-Wildlife Conflict Management: The
Committee suggested that states should implement inclusive
and efficient compensation policies addressing crop damage and
loss of human and livestock life. It recommended for enhanced
coordination among various agencies, with clear delineation of
responsibilities, to reduce response times for human-wildlife
conflict incidents. The designation of human-wildlife conflict as
a ‘natural disaster’, as done by some states, was encouraged for
wider adoption. Additionally, states were directed to provide ex-
gratia payments as per established governmental guidelines. The
Committee proposed the creation of a centrally trained and
equipped rapid response force termed as ‘Green Commandos’
capable of wildlife rescue operations and immediate deployment
nationwide through a centralized command and control centre,
maintained in a constant state of readiness through ongoing
training.
Page 42 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



34.8. Green Infrastructure Development: While
acknowledging the need for infrastructure development, the
Committee emphasized avoidance strategies in wildlife-bearing
forests as the primary mitigation measure. It called for the
uploading of comprehensive information on tiger reserves,
corridors, protected areas, and ESZs onto the Central
Government’s ‘Gati Shakti’ portal. Strict adherence to mitigation
measures prescribed by relevant authorities, including the
Wildlife Institute of India, the NTCA, and the National Board of
Wildlife, was recommended for all development activities,
including linear infrastructure projects. For transmission lines
traversing tiger reserves, insulated cables, bunch cabling or
underground laying should be employed wherever technically
feasible to minimize wildlife disturbance.
34.9. Regulation of Religious Tourism: The Committee
recognized the significant influx of pilgrims at places of worship
within some tiger reserves and recommended strict regulation of
pilgrimage activities. It recommended that the government
should facilitate eco-friendly, multi-seater vehicles or buses to
transport devotees, minimizing environmental impact in a
phased manner. The exploration of alternative transport modes
Page 43 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



such as ropeways, skywalks and tunnels was also encouraged to
accommodate sustainable pilgrimage access.
35. Steps to be taken for scrupulously implementing these
recommendations
35.1. Lastly, in compliance with this Court’s direction (in
paragraph 178.4.8 ), the Committee has also made various
suggestions for measures to ensure effective implementation of
these recommendations, and the consequent directions that this
Court will pass. These can be broadly categorised as follows:


35.2. Statutory Requirements: In its report, the
Committee recommends that all States be directed to notify the
core and buffer areas of their Tiger Reserves, emphasizing that
such delineation is essential for implementing a landscape
approach to tiger conservation and managing tiger land tenure
dynamics. The Committee notes that while 23 TCPs are currently
in effect and 25 are under revision, several States are yet to
submit their Plans and suggests that all States must prepare or
update their TCPs within three months. To enhance governance,
the Committee suggests the constitution of a Steering Committee
at each Tiger Reserve, comprising the Chief Minister as
Chairperson, the Minister in-charge of Wildlife as Vice-
Page 44 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



Chairperson, officials including field directors, representatives
from tribal affairs, wildlife experts with tribal development
experience, members of the Tribal Advisory Council,
representatives from Panchayati Raj and Social Justice
departments and the Chief Wildlife Warden as Member
Secretary. Recognizing that such committees seldom convene
despite being constituted, the Committee advises that these
bodies be established in all reserves within three months and
mandatorily meet at least twice a year. The Committee further
suggests strict adherence to NTCA guidelines on tourism,
including a complete ban on night tourism and fostering
primarily community-based tourism around reserves.


35.3. Human Resource Development: The Committee
advises strict prohibition on outsourcing forest staff officers and
recommends that the MoEF&CC consult the Central Empowered
Committee to fill vacancies in all Tiger Reserves within three
months. It highlights the need for wildlife-trained officers and
suggests that States consult the NTCA before appointing Field
Directors to ensure no such positions remain vacant. To
incentivize postings in remote areas, the Committee proposes
considering military-style benefits such as retaining government
Page 45 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



accommodation in chosen locations and instituting medals for
exemplary service, which may boost morale and loyalty among
frontline staff who often maintain multiple residences. The
report also identifies the need for upgrading existing anti-
poaching infrastructure to provide adequate amenities and
suggests permanent secondment of technically qualified officers
to institutional bodies for periodic supervision. Continuous
capacity-building programs for all staff and officials are
recommended to maintain operational proficiency.


35.4. The Financial Conundrum: The Committee
recommends enhancing resource inputs for Tiger Conservation
Foundations by encouraging States to increase tourism tariffs
substantially to align with low-volume, high-value eco-tourism,
enabling concessional rates for local communities and school
children. It suggested exploring the feasibility of promoting
responsible tourism in buffer areas and developing alternate,
less environmentally damaging tourism forms like nature walks
and treks. The Committee also proposes the levying of
conservation fees on accommodation facilities based on bed
count or a percentage of accommodation fees, as well as
environmental fees on vehicles entering ESZs. Furthermore, the
Page 46 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



Committee encourages NTCA and States to collaborate on
evaluating ecosystem services provided by reserves, establishing
mechanisms to charge downstream beneficiaries, and equitably
sharing resultant revenues between reserve authorities and local
communities.


35.5. The Development Paradigm: The Committee
stresses that core and critical tiger habitat areas should be kept
inviolate under all circumstances with no projects detrimental to
nature permitted. It highlights the critical need for security
forces operating in tiger reserves near international boundaries
to avoid establishing permanent infrastructure within core areas
which could cause ongoing disturbance due to troop movements
and logistics.


35.6. Other Suggestions: To prevent overcrowding at tiger
sighting locations, the Committee suggests mandating GPS
tracking devices on all tourist vehicles and imposing stringent
penalties on vehicles arriving beyond the first two at sighting
spots. It recommends regular training and capacity-building for
tourist vehicle drivers and guides to ensure responsible
behaviour within reserves. The Committee advises fixing the
boundaries and access routes of religious sites within reserves
Page 47 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



as they existed at the time of reserve notification, prohibiting new
construction including temporary structures. Pilgrim travel
should be restricted to CNG or electric vehicles, with pedestrian
access disallowed. Managing committees for such religious sites
might include the Field Director, District Collector, and
Superintendent of Police as special invitees whose roles should
be limited to protection without involvement in daily temple
operations. Finally, the Committee suggests prohibiting cooking
during mass feasts inside reserves to prevent illegal fuelwood
collection while allowing prasad to be prepared on solar-powered
electric stoves in small quantities within temple premises.
IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
36. We have extensively considered the diverse and
comprehensive Report submitted by the Expert Committee with
regards to both Corbett Tiger Reserve and the general
recommendations to be implemented with regards to Tiger
Safaris and Tiger Reserves.
37. Previously in T.N.Godavarman (supra), we were mindful of
the importance of employing the principle of restitution, which
in the context of the environment translates to prioritising
Page 48 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



ecological restoration. Reference was made to Article 8 of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, to which India is a
17
signatory and also various decisions of the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ), that laid down the standard in
international law for reparations, which was thereafter extended
to restoration of degraded ecosystems.
38. Adopting a restitutive approach has in fact been statutorily
mandated under Section 15(4) of the National Green Tribunals
Act, 2010 where the Tribunal is directed to provide relief
regarding “ restitution of the damaged property or environment ”.
This statutory duty of the Courts also flows from Article 21, 48A
and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Each of these Articles
highlight the importance of the environment in our
constitutional scheme. As per the Constitution, it is our bounden
duty, “ to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures .”

17
The Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), 13 September 1928, PCIJ,
Merits, p. 47) and Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border
Area, Compensation Judgment, (2018) I.C.J. Reports 15.
Page 49 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



39. This Court has also recognised this principle in Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action & Ors. v. Union of India &
18 19
Ors. and S. Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors. These
Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare
cases were relied upon in
20
Society v. State of Rajasthan [to which one of us, Gavai, J.
(as he then was) was a member] where it was held as follows:
“ 19. …. Compensation/penalty to be paid
by those indulging in illegal sand mining
cannot be restricted to the value of
illegally-mined minerals. The cost of
restoration of environment as well as the
cost of ecological services should be part
of the compensation. The “polluter pays”
principle as interpreted by this Court
means that the absolute liability for harm
to the environment extends not only to
compensate the victims of pollution but
also the cost of restoring the
environmental degradation. Remediation
of the damaged environment is part of the
process of “sustainable development” and
as such the polluter is liable to pay the
cost to the individual sufferers as well as
the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.”
40. In T.N. Godavarman (supra) itself, it was held that:
“173. It could thus be seen that, worldwide
as well as in our jurisprudence, the law
has developed and evolved emphasizing on
the restoration of the damaged ecological

18
(1996) 3 SCC 212: 1996 INSC 237 (Para 60 and 66).
19
(1997) 2 SCC 87: 1996 INSC 1466 (Para 49).
20
(2022) 16 SCC 581
Page 50 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



system. A reversal of environmental
damage in conformity with the principle
under Article 8(f) of the CBD is what is
required. At times, the compensatory
afforestation permits forestation at some
other site. However, the principle of
restoration of damaged ecosystem would
require the States to promote the recovery
of threatened species. We are of the
considered view that the States would be
required to take steps for the identification
and effective implementation of active
restoration measures that are localized to
the particular ecosystem that was
damaged. The focus has to be on
restoration of the ecosystem as close and
similar as possible to the specific one that
was damaged.”

41. While considering each individual head of
recommendations made by the Expert Committee, it will be
apposite to refer to paragraph 178.4.3 specifically, which laid
out the factors that must be considered in the Committee’s
recommendations, as they are relevant and serve as guiding
principles for this Court to follow as well:
“178.4.3. 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,
Page 51 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



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.
Needles to state that 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.”

42. It is this Court’s duty, therefore, in light of our
constitutional scheme and international obligations, 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.
V. CONCLUSION
43. In light of the recommendations made by the Expert
Committee, the restitutive approach elaborated hereinabove and
th
the earlier judgment of this Court dated 6 March 2024, we
deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in
continuation of our earlier orders:


Page 52 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



44. In relation to Corbett Tiger Reserve
With regards Corbett Tiger Reserve, we find it appropriate to
accept the Committee’s recommendations.
44.1. The State of Uttarakhand through the Chief Wildlife
Warden, Uttarakhand, in consultation with the CEC, is directed
to:
44.1.1. 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;
44.1.2. 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
44.1.3. File a compliance affidavit within a period of 1 year
from the date of this judgment.
44.1.4. 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
Page 53 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



native and indigenous species are identified, with special care to
not introduce any alien species to the ecosystem.
44.2. 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/-.
th

44.3. We extensively heard this matter on 30 May 2025.
However, when it was noticed that the aforesaid quantification
of the Committee would adversely affect the State of
th
Uttarakhand, we re-listed the matter on 14 November 2025 and
heard Shri Abhishek Attrey, learned standing counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand.
44.4. Shri Attrey vehemently objected to the quantification
of Rs. 29,80,00,000/-. It is submitted by Shri Attrey that the
number of trees estimated to be felled as per the FSI report is
6093 and number of trees felled as per record of DFO is 3620,
however, the IIFM picked the numbers given by FSI. He,
Page 54 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



therefore, submitted that the aforesaid amount has been
assessed without there being any foundation for the same.
44.5. 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.
th
44.6. Also, as per the earlier judgment dated 6 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.

Page 55 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



45. On whether tiger safaris shall be permitted in the buffer
and fringe areas
The Committee’s findings and recommendations on this aspect,
are also accepted:
45.1. 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.

45.2. 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.
45.3. 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.
45.4. These Tiger Safaris shall be subject to the conditions
and restrictions mentioned in the Report of the Expert
Committee, and as described in the following paragraph.

Page 56 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



46. Guidelines for Tiger Safaris
46.1. 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:
46.1.1. The directions of this Court in T.N. Godavarman
(supra) with regard to sourcing of animals shall be strictly
adhered to;

46.1.2. Only animals rescued and/or conflict animals from
the Tiger Reserve or from the same landscape should be housed
in the Tiger Safaris;
46.1.3. 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;
46.1.4. Tiger Safari should be under the management control
of the Field Director of the concerned Tiger Reserve with
supervision of the Chief Wildlife Warden;
46.1.5. Earnings should be ploughed back through the
concerned Tiger Conservation Foundations;
Page 57 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



46.1.6. Design considerations should be such that there is no
scope for interaction between in-situ and ex-situ populations;
46.1.7. Enclosure design must be approved by the CZA;
46.1.8.
Carrying capacity norms should be developed;
46.1.9. Solar/Hybrid/Electric vehicles to be promoted and
number of vehicles also must be regulated; and
46.1.10. Strict Zero Discharge of waste water to be permitted
from safaris.
47. Permissible and prohibited activities in the buffer and
fringe areas of the Tiger Reserve

47.1. Notifying ESZ for Tiger Reserves
47.1.1. Insofar as other protected areas are concerned in
Sanctuaries and National Parks, there exists the concept of Eco-
Sensitive Zones (ESZs) as per the 2011 Notification. The letter
rd
dated 23 April, 2018 (F.No.15-22/2013-NTCA) issued by the
MoEF&CC to the Chief Wildlife Wardens regarding submission
of proposal for notifying ESZ of Tiger Reserves, specifically
contemplates that the extent of the eco-sensitive zone for the
critical habitat of Tiger Reserves, will at the minimum , include
the buffer and fringe areas. The letter is extracted below:
Page 58 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



“ Sub: Submission of proposal for
notifying Eco Sensitive Zones of Tiger
Reserve
Sir,
Reference is invited to the subject cited
above. In this context, I am directed to
request you to kindly furnish proposal for
notifying Eco Sensitive Zones around Tiger
Reserves, as per list enclosed herewith, as
per advisory issued by this Authority in the
matter which states:
1. The entire buffer zone should be included
in the Eco Sensitive Zone
2. A radial cushion of minimum 1 km should
be kept from the critical tiger habitat
wherever the buffer is disjunct/absent
3. Where a Protected Area forms part of the
buffer, then a minimum 1 km cushion
should be demarcated around the said
buffer also. ”

47.1.2. 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. The letter appears
to be in the spirit of the concept of ESZs, taking forward the
culture of conservation, and 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.
Page 59 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



47.1.3. We were informed during the proceedings, that not all
Tiger Reserves have notified ESZs. We are of the firm belief that
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.
47.1.4. The formulation of ESZs for these Tiger Reserves will
rd
abide by the letter dated 23 April 2018 issued by the MoEF&CC
which clarifies that the minimum area comprised in the ESZs
will be the buffer or fringe area of the Tiger Reserve. These ESZs
will be accorded the same safeguards provided in the Notification
th
dated 9 February 2011, issued by the MoEF&CC, at the
minimum . Therefore, activities that are permitted inside these
ESZs for Tiger Reserves, will be the same as activities which are
governed under the said Notification.
47.1.5. It is specifically clarified by way of this direction 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,
Page 60 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



or the notified ESZ (whichever is larger), there will be a complete
ban on mining activities.
47.2. Permitted and regulated 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. The prohibited and
regulated activities are summarized below:
47.2.1. 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.
Page 61 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



(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.

47.2.2. 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.
Page 62 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



(v) Movement of vehicular traffic at night.
(vi) Protection of hill slopes and river banks as per the
master plan.
47.2.3.
Other recommendations on permissible and
prohibited activities:
(i) Tiger Conservation Plan should clearly delineate zones
within the buffer areas where new tourism
infrastructure may be developed considering road
accessibility, proximity to village habitations, animal
corridors, etc.

(ii) Development of tourism infrastructure in buffer zones
should be regulated in accordance with the ESZ
notifications issued under the Environment
(Protection) Act 1986.
(iii) Eco friendly tourism facility and infrastructure can be
allowed on non-forest land in buffer area of Tiger
Reserve.

(iv) Tourism infrastructure zone should be marked and
delineated in the buffer area and such tourism zone
should be part of Tiger Conservation Plan and Zonal
Master plan of Eco sensitive zone.
Page 63 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



48. 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, we accept the recommendations of the
Committee. We, therefore, issue the following directions in that
regard:
48.1. Ecotourism cannot resemble mass tourism and must
be adequately regulated and adhere strictly to NTCA Guidelines;
48.2. New eco-friendly resorts may be allowed in buffer but
shall not be allowed in an identified corridor;
48.3. Homestays and community-managed establishments
should be encouraged and incentives should also be given to
them;
48.4. Zero waste practices should be made mandatory;
48.5. Use of mobile phones within tourism zones of the core
habitat of tiger reserves should not be permitted;
48.6. Vehicular carrying capacity as prescribed in the NTCA
guidelines needs to be calculated and strictly enforced;
48.7. Complete ban on night tourism must be implemented;
Page 64 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



48.8. 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.
49. Permissible noise levels and the distance from the
boundary of the protected forest for which restrictions on
noise level will be applicable
With regard to the permissible noise level and the distance from
the boundary of the protected forests wherein restrictions on
noise would be applicable, the recommendations of the
Committee are accepted by us. We, therefore, issue the following
directions:
49.1. 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. Further, the authorities
of Tiger Reserve would be empowered to enforce the regulation
of maintaining silence zone and acting under relevant statutes.
49.2. 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 notified as Forests under the
Page 65 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



Indian Forest Act, 1927 and respective State Forest Acts, as
Silence Zones with similar norms as above.
50. Measures for effective management of Tiger Reserves,
on a pan-India basis, and steps to be taken for scrupulously
implementing these directions:
The Committee recommended certain measures to be applied on
a pan-India basis for the effective management and protection of
Tiger Reserves, and further, various steps to ensure
implementation of these measures. After considering their
detailed recommendations, we see merit in combining the
recommendations made by the Committee with regard to the
above two headings and accept them as follows, with
modifications where found necessary.
50.1. Statutory Requirements:
50.1.1. Delineation of core and buffer areas: Notifying
buffer areas is imperative for tiger land tenure dynamics to
operate in a landscape and to effectively implement the
landscape approach to conservation. Hence, 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.

Page 66 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



50.1.2. Preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan : In light of
the findings of the Expert Committee that TCPs are not uniformly
in place, all States are hereby directed to prepare a Tiger
Conservation Plan within a period of 3 months from the date of
this judgment.
50.1.3. Steering Committees: Since the Committee found
that Steering Committees in many States have not framed TCPs
and are not meeting regularly, it is, therefore, directed that
Steering Committee if not yet constituted for each Tiger Reserve,
shall be done so within 2 months from the date of this judgment.

50.1.4. We further direct the NTCA to monitor the issue as to
whether the TCPs have been put in place or not and whether the
Steering Committees have been meeting on a regular basis or
not. It is directed that the Steering Committees shall hold at least
two meetings in a year.
50.1.5. Adherence to the NTCA guidelines on tourism: 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.
Page 67 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



50.2. Strict Regulatory Regime:
50.2.1. All the States are directed to prepare Tiger
Conservation Plan (TCP) within a period of 6 months from the
date of this judgment;
50.2.2. Financial assistance under the Project Tiger
component of the CSS-IDWH should be mandatorily linked to an
approved Tiger conservation plan;
50.2.3. Forest areas in buffer and corridor regions identified
in the TCP should be managed as per the TCP to ensure harmony
of forestry operations vis-à-vis wildlife concerns;

50.2.4. Forestry operations in forest lands forming part of the
buffer areas should be incorporated in TCP in consultation with
working plan of the State Forest Department;
50.2.5. Critical Tiger Habitat notified under Section 38-V(4)(i)
of the WLP Act should be treated at equivalence with Critical
Wildlife Habitats as per Section 2(b) of the Scheduled Tribes and
other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act 2006, as both are decided on scientific principles and
ecological importance with due recognition of rights of tribals
and forest dwellers;
Page 68 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



50.2.6. TCP should also have the tiger carrying capacity
calculated as per extant norms, based on which habitat
interventions should be decided;
50.2.7.
While continuing the use of CAMPA funds for
voluntary village relocation, dedicated funds should be
earmarked for this activity to ensure an inviolate core/critical
tiger habitat. Voluntary village relocation should also be
financially assisted in areas of other strategic ecological value
such as villages in buffer or in dispersal routes of tigers.
50.3. Proper Human Resource Development and
Management :
50.3.1. 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
from the date of this judgment.
50.3.2. After this exercise is completed, State Governments
will take steps to fill in all the vacancies in various cadres in
accordance with this exercise conducted by this Special Cell, in
a time-bound manner. Special care must be taken to avoid
outsourcing of core patrolling roles and scientific posts, and
Page 69 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



other such jobs which are integral to management of Tiger
Reserves.
50.3.3. The report of the Committee has also considered
various other aspects with regard to human resource
development. In that regard, we pass the following directions:
(a) There shall be strict prohibition on outsourcing of forest
staff officers in performance of core functions.
(b) The MoEF&CC is directed to consult the CEC to fill in
vacancies in all Tiger Reserves in a timebound manner.
(c) All the State Governments are directed to ensure that no
position of any field director is kept vacant.
(d) State Governments are directed to consider the option
for extending the facility of retaining government
accommodation in a place of choice when a staff of the
forest department is posted in remote wildlife areas. It
will not be out of place to mention that such facilities are
made available to the military and paramilitary forces
and also for the employees of the Central Government
working in the remote wildlife areas.
(e) We further find that it is also necessary to incentivize
forest forces in order to boost their morale. In military,
Page 70 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



paramilitary and in police service, various medals are
given for distinguished and exemplary services. Medals
which can be displayed on the uniform need to be
constructively thought of, as currently, there is no such
provision. As the uniform is widely regarded as a piece
of cloth which unifies a field formation, this would not
only give a sense of pride but also enhance the loyalty
towards the organization.
(f) Even the existing anti-poaching infrastructure needs to
be upgraded beyond the existing standards so as to
provide adequate amenities/ facilities to frontline staff
which are deployed here.
(g) Permanent Secondment to institutional bodies for
officers with desirable qualifications (WL trained/field
experience/prior experience at GoI level): With tasks
requiring a high degree of technical supervision on a
periodic basis, it is imperative to retain officers with the
required skill set gained through training, field
experience and most importantly experience at the
NTCA.
(h) Continuous capacity building of Staff and officials.
Page 71 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



(i) States should ensure that vacancies in all levels in Tiger
reserves are filled up on a priority basis, which currently
is the biggest limiting factor in ensuring protection and
other scientific interventions in tiger reserves.
(j) A separate cadre for veterinarians and wildlife biologists
needs to be created for Tiger reserves to assist field
formations to carry out tasks which are highly technical
in nature, keeping in view the enlarged scientific
mandate.
(k) A cadre for Sociologists to engage with the fringe
communities on an ongoing basis to create a social fence
is imperative.
(l) Capacity building of forest frontline should be an
ongoing process with regular financial assistance as
mandated under Section 38-O(1)(j) of the WLP Act.
(m) Focus should be on emerging thematic areas such as
rewilding of orphaned/habituated tigers, scientific
habitat management, Standard Operating Procedures of
the NTCA besides other guidelines and advisories.
(n) To incentivize posting in the tiger reserves the rates of
the project and ration allowance as prescribed in the
Page 72 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



NTCA guidelines need to be enhanced
incrementally whenever Dearness Allowance is
enhanced and be made at par with the para-military
forces.
(o) In the unfortunate event of death in the line of duty, ex-
gratia payment on par with paramilitary forces should
be provided.
(p) Field staff in Tiger Reserves and other forest areas have
to maintain two establishments simply because their
place of posting is deep in the forests and away from any
support such as schooling etc. Family accommodation
for the frontline staff who are posted at remote areas
should be adequately provided across all tiger range
states as per the rules laid down for all serving Defence
and police staff in remote locations. The Central
Government should consider enhanced support to
States for setting up residential accommodation such as
field hostels for families of staff posted in non-family
stations.
(q) The infrastructure of the camps where the guards stay
should have basic facilities like access to clean water,
Page 73 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



safer accommodation, clean washrooms,
communication services and first-aid kits. In camps with
female staff, it is important to provide a separate toilet
and change room.
(r) It is necessary that free medical care for all such persons
sustaining injuries when they work in the field needs to
be considered by the State Governments. Such a step
would act as a great morale booster for the field level
grass root staff.
(s) In the wildlife and forest divisions, field level staffs,
including regular employees and daily wage persons
work under high-risk situations. Many lose their lives
fighting such adversity. As such, it would be appropriate
if an Insurance Cover is made available for any such
forest staff or daily wager who loses his/her life or is
completely disabled in performance of their duty. It must
be ensured that all field personnel including contractual
staff and daily wages are enrolled in the Ayushman
Bharat Scheme.
(t) In military, paramilitary and police services, special
awards are given to those who lay down their lives in the
Page 74 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



line of duty, posthumously and support is provided to
the families of such persons who have sacrificed their
lives for a cause. We find that it will be appropriate if the
Union and State Governments consider extending the
same benefits for the forest posts as well.
50.4. Timely and adequate funding support: The
Committee has expressed concerns with regard to timely and
adequate funding. We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate
to direct that the MoEF&CC, the NTCA and the CEC will jointly
come out with a policy framework on funding for tiger reserves.
Such a policy should contain a Standard Operating Procedure
for raising budgetary grants and assessment and approval of the
same. We direct the MoEF&CC, the NTCA and CEC to formulate
the said policy framework on funding, within a period of 6
months from the date of this judgment.
50.5. Proper Human Wildlife Conflict Management:
Insofar as the recommendations made by the Committee in this
regard, we find that it will be appropriate if the NTCA frames
Model Guidelines , incorporating these suggestions within 6
months from the date of this judgment, which will then in turn
be implemented by the State Governments within 6 months from
Page 75 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



the date the Model Guidelines are issued. It is clarified that the
NTCA may consult the State Governments and the CEC, if
required, while framing these Model Guidelines. The Expert
Committee’s recommendations, which the NTCA may take note
of, are summarized below:
50.5.1. All states should have smooth and inclusive
compensation policies for crop damage, loss of life of both human
and cattle.
50.5.2. In order reduce the timelines to mitigate the issues
resulting out of Human wildlife conflict, close coordination
between different agencies and departments with mandated
responsibilities is ensured.
50.5.3. Notifying 'Human wildlife conflict' as a "natural
disaster" (as has already been done by some states like Uttar
Pradesh) should be actively considered by other states. All the
States are directed to give ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lakh as
fixed by the MoEF&CC under CSS-IWDH.

50.6. Green Infrastructure Development: We find the
Committee’s recommendations in this regard to be helpful and
accept the same. We, therefore, direct that:
Page 76 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



50.6.1. While infrastructure development is the need of the
hour, "avoidance" in wildlife bearing forests should always be
considered as the first mitigation. All information about Tiger
Reserves, Tiger Corridors, Protected Areas, and ESZ should be
uploaded on the " Gati Shakti " portal of the Central Government.
50.6.2. Mitigation measures as prescribed by the Wildlife
Institute of India, NTCA, Standing Committee of the National
Board of Wildlife for any developmental activity and linear
infrastructure must be strictly followed in the interest of wildlife
conservation and development both.

50.6.3. The transmission lines wherever are required to be
laid through tiger reserves, should be insulated or bunch cabling
to be done or be laid underground as per the technical feasibility.
50.7. Regulation of Religious Tourism: We have come
across various instances wherein the sites for pilgrimage are
situated within the Tiger Reserves. We have also come across the
grievance that on account of huge influx of devotees, there is
large disturbance to the wildlife. It is noticed that hundreds of
people ply within the core areas on account of such pilgrimage.
In order to regulate such disturbances, we find that a balanced
approach needs to be adopted balancing the concerns of the wild
Page 77 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



as well as religious sentiments of the devotees. We are informed
that Sariska Tiger Reserve and some other reserves have issued
certain guidelines so as to regulate the movement of devotees in
the core areas. We find that similar steps are required to be taken
into other Tigers Reserves wherever the sites of pilgrimage are
situated.
51. We, therefore, direct the MoEF&CC as well as the various
State Governments to 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.
52. We are, however, aware about the fact that in various Tiger
Reserves there could be peculiar situations. We, therefore,
though direct that the aforesaid directions and
recommendations would be made applicable to all the Tiger
Reserves, the State would be at liberty to make minor
modifications in the recommendations made by us hereinabove
in consultation with the Wildlife Institute of India and NTCA.
53. We place on record our appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG. However, we
will be failing in our duty if we do not make a special mention
Page 78 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



of the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned Amicus Curiae ably assisted by Mr. M.V. Mukunda,
Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Mr. Shreenivas Patil and Ms. Veda
Singh, learned counsel. His in-depth research and meticulous
formulations have immensely assisted us in deciding this
issue, which is of paramount importance to environmental and
ecological justice.
54. Though we have requested Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned
Amicus Curiae, who has spent his valuable time in assisting this
Court in environmental matters for a period of almost three
years, to accept an honorarium, he has graciously refused to
accept the same stating that he was privileged to assist the Court
in the core issues pertaining to environment and ecological
preservation.
55. We, however, direct the CEC to pay an honorarium of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) each to Mr. M.V. Mukunda,
Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj, Mr. Shreenivas Patil and Ms. Veda
Singh, learned counsel, who have put in laborious efforts to
facilitate the learned Amicus Curiae in assisting this Court.
Though, we know that this amount would not be adequate for
Page 79 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



the services rendered by them, we have directed the payment
thereof as a token of appreciation for their services.

….......................................CJI
(B.R.GAVAI)



……………...............................J
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)



………..…...............................J
(A.S.CHANDURKAR)


NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 17, 2025.

Page 80 of 80
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995