Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

The petitioners, displaced tea estate workers, and public interest litigants sought the removal of long‑standing encroachments and restoration of forest lands in the Agasthyamalai landscape, which includes the Singampatti Zamin forest leased to Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited for tea cultivation for over 95 ye…

The petitioners sought a blanket prohibition on the installation of overhead transmission lines for solar power across roughly 99,000 square kilometres in Rajasthan and Gujarat, arguing that such lines threaten the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB). The Supreme Court had earlier ordered the conversion of…

The petitioners challenged the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change's 2017 Notification and the 2021 Office Memorandum, which sought to grant ex post facto environmental clearances for projects that had commenced without prior clearance under the 2006 EIA Notification. The Court examined whether such retr…

M/s Shewalkar Developers Ltd. sought permission to construct a health/eco‑resort on Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4 in Pachmarhi, Madhya Pradesh, claiming the land was not forest land and that its title, derived from a 1991 sale deed, was unchallenged. The State of Madhya Pradesh contended that the plots formed part of the Pac…

The Supreme Court examined whether tiger safaris can be treated like zoos under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and whether the proposed tiger safari at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger Reserve was lawful. It held that a zoo, as defined in s.2(39), is an ex‑situ conservation establishment and tiger safaris, as envisioned b…

The petition challenged the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s notification dated 29 January 2025 (S.O. 523(E)) and the accompanying Office Memorandum of 30 January 2025, which altered the regime of environmental clearance for building and construction projects under Entry 8(a) and 8(b) of the 2006 Sc…

The Range Forest Officer alleged that the directors and office bearers of a company illegally uprooted trees using a JCB, violating Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, and sought prosecution under Section 19. The Special Environment Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the …