Madhya Pradesh High Court extends stay on highway project in critical tiger corridor despite new NHAI proposal

The division bench noted that the court needed Tiger Conservation Authority and NBWL assistance for better understanding of NHAI’s plan.

Court demands expert testimony

The court expressed a need to better appreciate these recommendations before allowing construction to proceed.

The bench has directed both the NTCA and the NBWL to assist the court by explaining the integrated landscape management plan so that it ensures that the proposed plan will not “impede the free movement of wildlife in that area”.

The interim order restraining construction remains in effect. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 7.

NHAI’s new wildlife corridor proposal

The NHAI’s plea for vacating the stay relies on new recommendations from the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).

The plan proposes a new wildlife passage structure, adding a 1.2 km corridor and a 500-meter corridor within a 16 km span of the project area to facilitate wildlife movement, in addition to previously planned passages.

Case of national highway between two tiger reserves

• The case centers on a legal challenge regarding the construction of a national highway between the Satpura and Melghat Tiger Reserves.
• On April 1, 2022, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued an interim order restraining the NHAI from undertaking any construction activities within the corridor connecting the two tiger reserves.
• The National Tiger Conservation Authority, in April 2022, submitted that no such permission has been given to the National Highways Authority of India.
• Therefore, it is apparent that whatever work is being done by them through the corridor between Satpura and Melghat Tiger Reserves is illegal.
• The court’s primary concern was that the proposed highway would pass through an essential tiger habitat and wildlife passage, potentially disrupting the free movement of animals in the region.
• In 2025, the NHAI filed an application seeking to vacate the 2022 restraint order.
• The authority argued that construction should be allowed to proceed based on updated recommendations from the NTCA and the NBWL.
• The NHAI submitted that the new recommendations include an integrated landscape management plan.
• The NHAI filed a present plea seeking vacation of the April 2022 order.

Supreme Court environment rulings

• On October 8, the Supreme Court ordered the Jharkhand government to declare the Saranda forest a wildlife sanctuary in West Singhbhum district. These forests are also known as the ‘Land of Seven Hundred Hills’ for its hilly terrain and Asia’s largest Sal forests spanning 314 square kilometres.
• The bench of former Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K V Chandran had already rapped the state government for delaying the notification of the forest despite directions from the court.
• On November 13, the Supreme Court banned all mining activities within one kilometre of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries across the country.

• The landmark judgment was passed by a bench comprising former CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, which said that mining within these ecologically sensitive zones is “hazardous for wildlife and ecological balance”. It directed that such activities must cease immediately.
• The top court in April 2025, directed the Centre and Bihar government to submit a detailed report within four weeks on the encroachment of the Ganga’s banks, threats to dolphins, and the actions taken so far.
• The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan said clear information was needed in the case. An application was moved in 2020 by a Patna resident Ashok Kumar Sinha, who challenged illegal constructions along the ecologically fragile floodplains of the Ganga in Patna.
• The Supreme Court in November held that no safari will be permitted in core or critical tiger habitats.
• Setting new ecological safeguards, the bench, comprising former CJI Gavai and Justices A G Masih and A S Chandurkar ruled that tiger safaris can only be established on non-forest or degraded forest land located within buffer areas.
• Accepting the findings from a court-appointed expert panel examining ecological breaches at Uttarakhand’s Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve, the court said that these sites must not fall within recognised tiger corridors, which act as vital movement pathways for wildlife.