The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved orders on a wide-ranging spectrum of recommendations suggested by an expert committee for improving management of tiger reserves across India.
The court expressed reservation on accepting one proposal on phasing out night stay facilities for tourists in core area of tiger reserves.
The committee’s report submitted to the court on May 22 came on an order passed by SC in March 2024 while hearing the case pertaining to Pakhru tiger safari at Jim Corbett tiger reserve in Uttarakhand.
While seeing a regulatory mechanism for tiger safari, the court had in its order required the Centre to form a committee of experts and make recommendations on measures that are required to be taken for effective management and protection of tiger reserves which shall be applicable on a Pan India basis.
Also Read: Ban night tourism, limit safaris: SC panel on tiger reserve mgmt
The committee suggestions included promoting eco-tourism in tiger reserves, securing tiger habitat, improving service conditions of forest staff, strengthening wildlife crime detection and trial, and better management of man-animal conflicts among other related aspects.
The committee comprised of Chandra Prakash Goyal, Member CEC, Vaibhav C. Mathur, Deputy Inspector General of Forests, NTCA, Qamar Qureshi, Scientist G, WII, Dehradun, and R. Raghu Prasad, Inspector General of Forests, Wildlife as Member Secretary.
It referred to an elaborate set of guidelines prepared by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) in 2012 that received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in Ajay Dubey v NTCA, decided in October 2012. The guidelines proposed phasing out of night stay facility for tourists inside the core area of tiger reserves.
The committee said, “Night stay facilities for tourists in core areas must be completely phased out within the next six months as more than a decade has already elapsed since this was recommended in the NTCA guidelines. In order not to disrupt the circadian rhythm of wildlife, a complete ban on night tourism must be implemented in tiger reserves.”
The bench, also comprising Justice AG Masih, said, “This facility in a way helps in getting people to come closer to nature. It helps in growing awareness and love for nature and wildlife among citizens.”
Senior advocate K Parmeshwar assisting the court as amicus curiae pointed out that so long as the lodges and government bungalows are allowed to operate, the core area cannot remain inviolable.”
The bench said, “Even if people stay there, nobody is allowed to move out after a specific time, including VVIPs, except forest officers.” It further reasoned that by letting out such facilities to tourists, the money earned in this manner can be utilised towards conservation of wildlife.
The Centre represented by additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati informed the court that the ministry of environment forests and climate change (MoEFCC) have no objections to any of the recommendations made by the committee and are willing to accept the same.
Parmeshwar highlighted other areas of concern from the report which failed to address the issue of preparation of a Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP) as per Section 38V of the Wildlife Protection Act. He said, “Out of 58 tiger reserves in the country, only 23 have it. It is absolutely necessary to have TCP. This is happening despite the 2012 Ajay Dubey judgment.”
The bench asked the amicus to submit a note of suggestions and said, “We will fix an outer limit for coming out with TCP, maybe in six months or one year.”