Supreme Court Restricts Tiger Safari to Non-Forest Land

Tiger Safari

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

Tiger Safari FAQs

Q1: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding tiger safaris?

Ans: The Court held that tiger safaris can only be conducted on non-forest or degraded forest land within buffer areas, not in core habitats.

Q2: What restrictions did the Court impose on tourism?

Ans: It banned night tourism and the use of mobile phones in core tiger reserve areas.

Q3: What are Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) in tiger reserves?

Ans: ESZs are protective buffer zones surrounding tiger reserves, where tourism and development activities are regulated under MoEF&CC guidelines.

Q4: What activities are prohibited in tiger reserve buffer areas?

Ans: Mining, sawmills, polluting industries, hydroelectric projects, waste discharge, and tree felling without permission are banned.

Q5: What directives were given to state governments?

Ans: States must revise Tiger Conservation Plans within three months and notify core and buffer areas within six months.

How China Reduced Air Pollution: Key Lessons India Can Learn

Air Pollution

Air Pollution Latest News

  • Each winter, North India faces severe smog, worsened by low temperatures, stagnant winds, stubble burning, and firecrackers. 
  • Pollution remains high year-round due to industry and vehicle emissions, even in coastal cities like Mumbai.
  • China, which once grappled with similar pollution crises, is often cited as a model. Its recent success in dramatically improving air quality has drawn attention, with Chinese officials expressing willingness to share their strategies.
  • This raises key questions: What challenges did China face, how effectively did it tackle them, and which of its solutions could realistically work in India?

China’s ‘Airpocalypse’: How Rapid Growth Triggered a Pollution Crisis

  • India’s current pollution levels mirror China’s late-2000s phase, when rapid industrialisation and urbanisation sharply increased particulate pollution and its health impacts. 
  • After China opened its economy in 1978, carbon emissions soared, leading to smog-filled skies, contaminated rivers, and rising public discontent.
  • The situation gained global attention during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, pushing the government to act. 
  • China’s main pollutant was PM2.5, emitted from heavy industries, coal-based heating, power plants, vehicles, and crop burning. These particles penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, causing severe health risks.
  • Recognising the urgency, China launched aggressive measures from 2013 onward, resulting in air quality improvements across nearly 80% of the country.

China’s Policy Push: Strong Top-Down Governance

  • By the late 2000s, air pollution became a major government priority. China’s 11th Five-Year Plan integrated environmental goals into the cadre evaluation system, where bureaucrats’ promotions depended on meeting pollution-control targets. 
  • This created strong top-down pressure for compliance across provinces and cities.

Industrial Shutdowns and Cleaner Technologies

  • China invested heavily in pollution-control technologies and shut down thousands of outdated, highly polluting industrial units—including smelters, chemical factories, power plants, and paper mills. 
  • Simultaneously, the government pushed aggressively for Electric Vehicles (EVs), recognising their lower lifecycle emissions compared to traditional combustion engines.

Mass Electrification of Transport

  • Cities like Shenzhen led the world by fully electrifying their massive bus fleets. 
  • By 2017, all 16,000+ buses in the city were electric, a move replicated by other cities such as Shanghai. 
  • These transitions greatly cut urban tailpipe emissions.

Key Measures That Improved Air Quality (2013–2017)

  • Studies from Tsinghua University show that China’s biggest gains came from:
    • Restrictions on coal boilers,
    • Cleaner residential heating,
    • Shutting local polluting industries, and
    • Vehicle emission controls.

Caveats and Ongoing Challenges

  • China’s model has pitfalls. Strict targets sometimes lead to fudged data or illegal reopening of factories. 
  • Recent commitments to increase coal capacity have raised concerns about reversing progress. 
  • Additionally, China’s air-quality standards remain less stringent than Western norms, leaving room for improvement.

India and China: Similar Laws, Different Outcomes

  • Both countries introduced environmental laws in the 1980s and air-quality programmes in the 2010s, yet China’s results have been far more effective. 
  • China followed continuous, long-term action, while India relies on reactive mechanisms like GRAP, triggered only after pollution crosses dangerous thresholds and limited mainly to the NCR.

Key Determinants of Success: Political Will and Accountability

  • A 2023 comparative study highlighted two crucial factors:
    • Strong political will and financial capacity to prioritise clean air.
    • Clear accountability systems linking national standards to facility-level pollution control.
  • China had both; India struggles with fragmented governance and inconsistent enforcement.

Structural Differences: Energy Access and Household Emissions

  • India faces unique challenges such as biomass burning in rural households, unlike China. 
  • While LPG subsidies have helped, affordable clean fuel access remains limited. 
  • China also tackled pollution after achieving near-universal electricity access, allowing it to close polluting plants without jeopardising basic needs.

Governance Constraints in India

  • China’s unitary political structure enables swift, top-down implementation. 
  • India’s overlapping jurisdictions dilute responsibility and slow enforcement, though judicial interventions through PILs have helped fill gaps.

What India Can Learn

  • Experts note India can adapt key Chinese strategies:
    • Stricter industrial and vehicular emission norms
    • Wider adoption of clean fuels
    • Stronger public transport systems
    • Robust environmental monitoring and scientific research
  • While India cannot copy China’s model exactly, China’s experience demonstrates that comprehensive, science-based, and accountable action can significantly improve air quality.

Source: IE | TH

Air Pollution FAQs

Q1: Why is China seen as a model for air pollution control?

Ans: China dramatically reduced PM2.5 levels through strict enforcement, shutting polluting industries, expanding clean energy, and electrifying transport, offering valuable lessons for India’s persistent smog crisis.

Q2: What triggered China’s air pollution crisis in the 2000s?

Ans: Rapid industrialisation, coal dependence, urbanisation, and rising vehicle emissions created China’s “airpocalypse,” prompting public anger and international scrutiny, especially before the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Q3: What were China’s most effective pollution-control measures?

Ans: Key actions included closing outdated factories, restricting coal boilers, cleaner heating, nationwide EV adoption, stricter emission norms, and linking bureaucrats’ promotions to air-quality targets.

Q4: Why has India struggled compared to China?

Ans: India relies on reactive measures like GRAP, faces biomass burning, uneven clean fuel access, and fragmented governance, unlike China’s unified, well-funded, long-term implementation.

Q5: What can India realistically adopt from China’s strategy?

Ans: India can tighten industrial and vehicular norms, expand public transport, boost clean fuels, strengthen monitoring, and implement accountability-linked pollution control while tailoring solutions to local realities.

Supreme Court Warns on Digital Arrest Scams, Urges Action on UN Cybercrime Treaty

Digital Arrest Scam

Digital Arrest Scam Latest News

  • Highlighting the need for global collaboration to tackle cybercrime, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to clarify whether India has ratified the UN Convention against Cybercrime
  • During a hearing on a suo motu case related to a ‘digital arrest’ scam, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on India’s status regarding the treaty, stressing its importance in addressing rising online frauds.

Digital Arrest Scam

  • A digital arrest scam is a sophisticated cyber fraud in which criminals impersonate law enforcement agencies to intimidate victims into believing they are under “virtual arrest”. 
  • Scammers typically pose as officers from the police, CBI, ED, or even courts, using forged documents, spoofed phone numbers, or video calls to create a sense of urgency and fear.
  • Victims are falsely accused of crimes such as money laundering, violating cyber laws, or involvement in illegal parcels. 
  • They are then coerced into staying on video call “under surveillance” and pressured to transfer money to supposedly secure or investigative accounts. 
  • Elderly individuals and professionals are frequent targets.

United Nations Convention against Cybercrime

  • Adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2024, the Convention is the world’s first comprehensive global treaty on cybercrime. 
  • It establishes a unified framework for countries to prevent, investigate, and combat a wide range of cyber offences. 
  • It recognises that criminals exploit ICT systems across borders—hacking networks, stealing data, committing financial fraud, and engaging in online child exploitation—while law enforcement remains limited by jurisdictional boundaries.
  • A key objective of the treaty is to enhance international cooperation, especially in the sharing of electronic evidence across borders for cybercrimes and other serious offences.

The Treaty Structure

  • It consists of a Preamble and nine chapters, covering General Provisions, Criminalization, Jurisdiction, Procedural Measures, International Cooperation, Preventive Measures, Technical Assistance, Implementation, and Final Provisions.

Major Provisions

  • The Convention requires states to criminalise core cyber offences—illegal access, data interference, system interference, online fraud, forgery, child sexual abuse material, grooming, and non-consensual intimate image sharing. 
  • It obligates countries to align domestic laws and cooperate through extradition, mutual legal assistance, and 24/7 contact points for quick evidence preservation. 
  • It also empowers authorities to secure electronic evidence through expedited preservation, search and seizure, production orders, and interception, while respecting human rights.

Implementation

  • A Conference of States Parties will monitor compliance, review progress, and adopt future protocols. 
  • The treaty was opened for signature in October 2025 and will become binding once 40 states ratify it.
  • The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime serves as the secretariat to the Ad Hoc Committee and to the future Conference of the States Parties.

SC on Digital Arrest Scams

  • Emphasising global cooperation in fighting cybercrime, the Supreme Court asked the Centre to consider ratifying the UN Convention against Cybercrime
  • SC Judge noted that without worldwide coordination, India cannot effectively trace money trails in cyber frauds. 
  • The Solicitor General informed the Court that India has not yet ratified the treaty.

Bench Passes Extraordinary Order in Digital Arrest Case

  • In a rare move, the Court directed that the accused in a ‘digital arrest’ fraud—where a 72-year-old lawyer lost ₹3.29 crore—must not be granted bail until the investigation is completed. 
  • The order came after concerns that the accused might be released as the 90-day chargesheet deadline nears. 
  • Justice Kant remarked that the situation may require unusual orders.

Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Growing Digital Arrest Scams

  • Acting on a complaint from an elderly couple in Ambala who were defrauded of ₹1.05 crore, the SC had earlier sought responses from the MHA and CBI. 
  • The scammers allegedly used forged orders of the SC, Bombay HC, and ED to intimidate victims.

Proposal to Transfer All Digital Arrest Cases to CBI

  • Concerned by the sharp rise in cyber fraud, the Supreme Court proposed moving all digital arrest cases nationwide to the CBI, asking states to submit case details. 
  • The Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has also sought to join proceedings to assist the court.

Source: IE | TH | UNODC

Digital Arrest Scam FAQs

Q1: What is a digital arrest scam?

Ans: A scam where fraudsters impersonate police, CBI, ED or courts, falsely accuse victims, keep them on video calls, and coerce them into transferring large amounts of money.

Q2: Why did the Supreme Court mention the UN Cybercrime Convention?

Ans: The SC stressed that without global cooperation and cross-border evidence sharing under the UN treaty, India cannot effectively investigate or trace money trails in rising cyber fraud cases.

Q3: What extraordinary order did the SC issue?

Ans: The Court directed that accused in a major digital arrest scam must not be released on bail until the investigation concludes, citing the need for “unusual orders.”

Q4: Why did the SC take suo motu cognisance?

Ans: It acted after an elderly couple reported losing ₹1.05 crore to scammers using forged court orders, reflecting the sharp nationwide rise in digital arrest fraud.

Q5: What steps has the SC proposed to curb these scams?

Ans: The Court suggested transferring all digital arrest cases to the CBI, sought data from states, and allowed SCAORA to assist, aiming for coordinated national action.

Enquire Now