SC forms panel to examine tiger safaris, ecological harm at Jim Corbett: What was the case

The Supreme Court Wednesday (March 6) ordered the formation of a committee that would recommend ways to restore the ecological damage in the Jim Corbett National Park caused by illegal construction and tree cutting.

The committee will also examine issues around tiger safaris in the buffer areas of national parks, and issue necessary guidelines.

What is the case about?

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta, was hearing a public interest litigation on the illegal cutting of trees and constructions within the Tiger Breeding Habitat of the Corbett Tiger Reserve.

In 2021, the petitioner, advocate Gaurav Bansal, first approached the Delhi HC, alleging that bridges were built illegally without approvals. However, the Delhi High Court did not intervene and directed the government to look into the issues raised by the petitioner.

Bansal had also filed applications before the Central Empowered Committee, whose report on the issue became a case before the SC in January 2023.

Meanwhile, the Uttarakhand High Court had in 2021 taken suo motu notice of the illegal construction based on news reports. The case involved both Rajaji National Park and Jim Corbett. On September 6, 2023, the Uttarakhand HC handed over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) after finding a “prima facie case.”

What is the case concerning Pakhrau safari?

In its 159-page ruling, the Supreme Court, quoting from the CEC report, listed several irregularities in the implementation of the Pakhrau safari.

The CEC report pointed out that outside the tiger safari, a 1.2-km road and culverts were built. Also, at least 12 buildings with four rooms each were built as Forest Rest Houses at Pakhrau, Morghatti, and Kugadda camps without requisite approvals.

Inside the safari, the CEC report pointed out illegal cutting of an estimated 6,053 trees when permission was granted for only 163 trees. While the Ministry of Environment had approved using bamboo for the buildings, the CEC report found concrete structures. While Rs 28.81 crore was approved, a sum of Rs 102.11 crore was spent on the construction, the report found.

Who is accused of committing these irregularities?

The report said these works were carried out without requisite approvals and solely on the instructions of the District Forest Officer (DFO), Kalagarh, who is not “competent to sanction such works.”

Before the CBI took over the investigation in 2022, the state vigilance department had arrested the DFO, Kishan Chand, and Brij Vihari Sharma, the then range officer, Sonnadi Range and Pakhrau unit. In October last year, the CBI also raided some other officials in connection with the case.

The CEC told the court it was “of the opinion that it was the then honourable Forest Minister who was the main architect of the entire matter.”

The forest minister at the time was Congress leader Harak Singh Rawat, then in the BJP. In January 2022, the BJP expelled Rawat from the party for six years on the grounds of indiscipline.

What solutions have the SC suggested?

The Supreme Court did not object to the decision to set up a tiger safari at Pakhrau, as most of the concerned authorities were in agreement with it. The Uttarakhand government informed the court that the safari was 80% complete and many tigers were waiting to be rehabilitated into it from rescue centers. 

Who is in the SC-appointed committee?

The SC-appointed committee comprises of a representative each from the National Tiger Conservation Authority, the Wildlife Institute of India, the Central Empowered Committee, and an officer of the Environment ministry, not below the rank of Joint Secretary, as its Member Secretary. The committee's primary task is to evaluate the environmental damage caused to the Corbett Tiger Reserve, identify the delinquent officers responsible for the damage, and recommend restoration measures.

The committee will also assess whether tiger safaris can be permitted in the buffer or fringe areas of a national park. If yes, they will suggest guidelines for establishing the same. The Court stated that the committee's approach should be ecocentric, keeping in mind the precautionary principle to ensure minimal environmental damage. The court also outlined that only injured, orphaned, or conflicted tigers may be exhibited in safaris and that no other animals should be sourced from outside the tiger reserve.