New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday directed state governments to notify eco-sensitive zones (ESZ) around all tiger reserves, including buffer and fringe areas, not less than one kilometre from their outer boundaries, and formulate a policy to declare the entire tiger reserve as silence zone while prohibiting use of mobile phones or night tourism in the core or critical tiger habitat.
The court’s comprehensive pan-India guidelines, aimed at conservation of tigers and regulation of protected areas, placed strict timelines on states, directing them to notify the buffer and core areas of tiger reserves within six months, come out with a tiger conservation plan (TCP) also within six months, and prescribe ESZ within one year.
“We direct the ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MoEFCC) 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 six months from the date of this judgment,” a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai said.
To bolster the defence of forests and wildlife in protected zones, the court issued a slew of directions in regards with the employment, service conditions and other benefits for forest staffers, who are the persons on the frontline. In a first, the bench directed the Centre to create separate policies on funding of tiger reserves, and staffing and cadre requirements. It also prohibited outsourcing of forest staff and directed that in no circumstance, the post of field director — in charge of the reserve — be kept vacant.
The guidelines were based on recommendations made by an expert committee constituted by the MoEFCC on the court’s order in March 2024 to examine the ecological violations, quantify damage, recommend restoration measures, and identify officers responsible for the destruction inside the Corbett Tiger Reserve in Uttarakhand.
The bench, also comprising justices Augustine George Masih and AS Chandurkar, also proposed a host of innovative measures to boost the morale of forest staff by allowing medals to be displayed on their uniform for commendable work similar to any uniformed service, and an ex-gratia amount in case of an unfortunate death in the line of duty on par with paramilitary forces.
The court also directed a policy on funding for tiger reserves along with religious tourism, and a mechanism to prevent man-animal conflict.
On tiger safari, the court reiterated that its March 6, 2024 judgment shall hold the field that required tiger safari to be established on ‘non-forest land’ or ‘degraded forest land’ in buffer area provided that it is not part of a tiger corridor.
The court also directed the Uttarakhand government to undertake comprehensive restoration measures, demolish unauthorised constructions, and remedy the destruction caused by illegal tree felling and construction works inside the Corbett Tiger Reserve. It, however, did not quantify costs to be paid by erring officials as the trial is pending.
While sanctuaries and national parks have ESZ as per a 2011 central notification, the court observed that in 2018, the MoEFCC wrote to all the chief wildlife wardens (CWW) for submitting proposals for notifying ESZ of tiger reserves, which at the minimum must include the buffer and fringe areas.
“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, no later than 1 year from the date of this judgment,” the bench said in its order.
The court said that activities that are permitted, prohibited or restricted for national parks and sanctuaries will apply for tiger reserves as well with a complete ban on mining activities within the ESZ, which is either 1 km from a tiger habitat or buffer area, or the notified ESZ (whichever is larger).
Senior advocate K Parmeshwar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, had pointed out only 23 of the 58 tiger reserves in the country have a tiger conservation plan (TCP) — mandated for all tiger reserves under Section 38V of the Wildlife Protection Act —in place. This, Parmeshwar said, despite the top court mandating it in its 2012 Ajay Dubey judgment.
CJI Gavai, writing the judgment said, “TCP should clearly delineate zones within the buffer areas where new tourism infrastructure may be developed considering road accessibility, proximity to village habitations, (and) animal corridors.” The court directed states that do not have a TCP to set up a steering committee in two months and frame a TCP in six months. Such TCP should also have the tiger carrying capacity calculated as per the applicable norms.
The court further said: “Complete ban on night tourism must be implemented…Use of mobile phones within tourism zones of the core habitat of tiger reserves should not be permitted.” In those tiger reserves where roads traverse the core/critical tiger habitat, strict night regulation (from dusk to dawn except ambulances/emergency) needs to be exercised, the court held.
The judgment declared the entire area of the reserve (including ESZ) to be notified as “silence zone” under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, within three months and asked the Centre and states to replicate this decision for all protected areas notified as forests as well.
Both the MoEFCC and central empowered committee (CEC) were directed to jointly set up a special cell to review and assess staffing patterns and cadre requirements in all tiger reserves within a year. “There shall be strict prohibition on outsourcing of forest staff officers in performance of core functions,” it said, proposing clean camps, insurance cover, health facilities for forest guards with all basic amenities and separate toilet for women guards.
The court directed to ensure that anti-poaching infrastructure is upgraded by providing adequate amenities and facilities to frontline staff and to ensure vacancies in tiger reserves get filled up on a priority basis.
The judgment proposed a separate cadre for veterinarians and wildlife biologists for tiger reserves to assist field operations. In addition, a cadre for sociologists was intended to engage with the fringe communities to create a “social fence” for protecting tigers.
The court judgment also dealt with other related issues of man-animal conflict as it asked NTCA to frame model guidelines in six months and the states to implement it within the next six months where compensation policies for crop damage, loss of life of both human and cattle should be worked out.
The court left it to states to consider notifying ‘Human wildlife conflict’ as a “natural disaster” while directing an ex-gratia amount of ₹10 lakh to be given in case of death.
Noting the presence of religious places inside core area of tiger reserves frequented by devotees, the court directed the Centre and states to come out with a policy on the lines of what has been proposed for Sariska tiger reserve.