SC bench airs concern about conflicting orders in a forest-related matter

On February 19, hearing a petition challenging the amendments made in 2023 to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA), the CJI-led bench directed that the “broad and all-encompassing” definition of forest, as laid down in the Supreme Court’s 1996 judgement in the T N Godavarman case, be followed until a consolidated record of all kinds of forests across the country is prepared.

The interim order also said that “any proposal for the establishment of zoo/safaris referred to in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, owned by the government or any authority in forest areas other than protected areas shall not be finally approved save and except with the prior permission of” the court.

Incidentally, a bench presided by Justice Gavai had been dealing with a petition challenging the Uttarakhand government’s proposal to have a specialised zoo in the buffer area of Jim Corbett national park. The bench said last year, “prima facie, we do not appreciate the necessity of having a zoo inside Tiger Reserves or National Parks. The concept of protecting Tiger Reserves and National Parks is that the fauna must be permitted to reside in the natural habitat and not the artificial environs”. The bench also reserved its order in the matter last month.

Calling upon the National Tiger Conservation Authority to explain the rationale behind granting such a permission for permitting Tiger Safaris within Tiger Reserves and National Parks, the Justice Gavai-led bench also restrained authorities from making any construction within the areas notified as Tiger Reserves and National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries until further orders.

On Friday, Justice Gavai, presiding over a bench, asked ASG Bhati, who was present in the court, whether she had appeared before the CJI court in the forest matter on February 19. “Madam, you did not appear in the forest conversation matter before Court 1?” Justice Gavai asked.
When Bhati replied in the affirmative, Justice Gavai asked whether she had informed the court that it was seized of the matter. Bhati said she had informed the court.

When the bench asked about the directions passed by Court 1, the ASG replied that the “only direction there is that for any permission, it should come here. That’s an interim order also, My Lord… The only one-line direction is that for establishing any zoos/safaris in the forest, the permission of this court will be required”.
The Justice Gavai-led bench is likely to pronounce its order in the Uttarakhand matter next week.