Supreme Court Restricts Tiger Safari to Non-Forest Land

Tiger Safari Latest News

• In a landmark ruling aimed at preserving India’s tiger habitats, the Supreme Court has issued sweeping directions to curb ecological damage in tiger reserves.

Background of the Case

• The ruling stems from a suo motu intervention by the Supreme Court after reports of unauthorised tree felling, illegal construction, and misuse of funds surfaced within the Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve. 
• An expert committee appointed by the Court investigated the violations and proposed detailed recommendations for ecological restoration.
• Accepting the committee’s findings, the Court noted that tiger tourism, while valuable for public awareness, has often devolved into “mass commercial tourism” detrimental to wildlife and forest ecosystems. 
• The judgment seeks to strike a balance between ecotourism, local livelihoods, and biodiversity protection.

‹ ›

Key Directives of the Supreme Court

• Tiger Safaris Only in Non-Forest Areas
  • The Court categorically prohibited tiger safaris inside core or critical tiger habitats, directing that they may only be established on non-forest or degraded forest land within buffer zones.
  • Further, such safaris must operate in association with a fully functional rescue and rehabilitation centre for tigers, catering to conflict animals, injured, or abandoned wildlife.
• Complete Ban on Night Tourism and Mobile Use
  • Recognising the disturbance caused by human activity and noise pollution, the Court imposed a complete ban on night tourism within tiger reserves.
  • In areas where roads pass through core tiger habitats, the Court ordered strict night-time regulation, prohibiting vehicular movement from dusk to dawn, except for emergency or ambulance services.
  • Additionally, it directed that the use of mobile phones within tourism zones of core habitats be strictly prohibited to minimise noise and human interference.
• Eco-Sensitive Zone Norms for Tiger Reserves
  • The Court directed that Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) around tiger reserves must conform to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) norms.
  • Under this, the minimum ESZ area shall be equivalent to the buffer or fringe area of the tiger reserve. States were instructed to notify ESZ boundaries within one year, ensuring uniform protection standards nationwide.
• Regulation of Tourism Infrastructure in Buffer Zones
  • The judgment mandates that all tourism infrastructure development in buffer areas comply with ESZ notifications under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
  • While eco-friendly resorts may be allowed in buffer areas, the Court emphasised that no such establishment shall be permitted in tiger corridors. It further recommended promoting community-managed homestays and village-based ecotourism, thereby ensuring that conservation efforts benefit local populations.
• Ban on Commercial and Industrial Activities
  • The Court imposed a comprehensive ban on ecologically harmful activities in buffer and fringe areas, including:
    • Commercial mining and polluting industries,
    • Sawmills and hydroelectric projects,
    • Firewood extraction and tree felling without authorisation,
    • Waste discharge into natural ecosystems,
    • Use of low-flying aircraft or tourism flights, and
    • Introduction of exotic species.
  • These restrictions align with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and India’s commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Directions to States and Tiger Conservation Authorities

• The Court instructed all State Governments to:
  • Prepare or revise the Tiger Conservation Plans within three months.
  • Notify core and buffer areas within six months.
  • Establish effective monitoring systems to ensure compliance with the ruling.
• It also directed the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to serve as the nodal agency for enforcing these directions and conducting annual ecological audits of tiger reserves.
• The NTCA and MoEF&CC were further asked to submit a joint compliance report within one year, detailing progress in implementing the Court’s directives.

Significance of the Judgment

• This verdict reinforces the principle of “ecocentric jurisprudence”, which prioritises the intrinsic value of nature over anthropocentric interests. 
• By imposing strict limits on tourism and infrastructure expansion, the Court has sought to reverse the trend of ecological degradation within protected areas.
• It also aligns with India’s broader conservation goals under Project Tiger (1973), which has helped increase the national tiger population to 3,682 as per the 2024 census, a global success story.
• Moreover, by encouraging community-based tourism and homestays, the judgment ensures that local economies remain linked to conservation rather than exploitation.

Source: TH | IE