SC sets up panel to look into tiger safaris, ecological damage at Jim Corbett: What was the case

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 felling 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 constructed illegally without approvals. However, the Delhi High Court did not intervene and directed the government to look into the issues flagged 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 cognizance 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 execution 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 felling 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 has the SC suggested?

The court did not interfere with the decision to establish a tiger safari at Pakhrau, “since most of the authorities mentioned therein were ad idem” on it (ad Idem is Latin for “of the same mind”).

The Uttarakhand government also informed the SC that 80% of the work on the safari was complete, and many tigers were waiting in rescue centres to be rehabilitated into the safari.

Who is in the SC-appointed committee?

The SC appointed a committee consisting of a representative each from the National Tiger Conservation Authority; the Wildlife Institute of India; the CEC; and an officer of the Environment ministry not below the rank of Joint Secretary as its Member Secretary.

This committee is tasked with assessing the environmental damage to the Corbett Tiger Reserve; identify “delinquent officers” from whom the costs for restoration can be recovered, and recommend measures for restoration.

The committee will also assess whether tiger safaris can be permitted in the buffer or fringe areas of a national park, and if yes, suggest guidelines for establishing them.

The Court outlined key factors that need to be kept in mind for the committee’s recommendations — “the approach must be of ecocentrism and not of anthropocentrism;” precautionary principle to ensure that the least amount of environmental damage is caused; and the need to ensure that animals are not sourced from outside the tiger reserve for safaris. The court said “only injured, conflicted, or orphaned tigers may be exhibited” in safaris.