Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

16 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 43026 April 2023Disposed off

The Union of India sought modification of the Supreme Court's directions dated 3 June 2022 that mandated a uniform one‑kilometre eco‑sensitive zone (ESZ) around every protected forest and prohibited any new permanent structures within such zones. The Court examined the practical difficulties of a uniform ESZ, the impac

A. JOHN KENNEDY ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC.

2025 INSC 44324 March 2025Directions issued

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

GOA FOUNDATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 96221 April 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined public‑interest petitions concerning illegal iron‑ore mining in Goa, the validity of the Justice Shah Commission report, and the status of mining leases deemed to have arisen from pre‑1961 Portuguese concessions. It held that the Commission’s report could not be quashed for procedural lapses,

M K RANJITSINH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 28021 March 2024Directions issued

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

PRINCL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ANR.versusJ.K. JOHNSON & ORS.

2011 INSC 77017 October 2011Disposed off

The case concerned a seizure of a jeep, rifles and wildlife by police under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The accused offered to compound the offence under Section 54(1) and the Conservator of Forests ordered forfeiture of the seized items. The appellants appealed, arguing that the amendment to Section 54 gave

VANASHAKTIversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 71816 May 2025

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

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 42616 May 2024Disposed off

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

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

2018 INSC 15216 February 2018Disposed off

The State of Himachal Pradesh sought permission to carry out silvicultural felling of Chil Pine, Khair and broad‑leaved forests up to 1,500 metres above sea level, arguing that limited felling is necessary for regeneration. The Supreme Court had earlier, by its 12‑December‑1996 and 14‑February‑2000 orders, imposed a bl

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERSversusANAND ENGINEERING COLLEGE AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 71112 July 2022Disposed off

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to impose Rs 10 crore in damages on Anand Engineering College for discharging effluent into the National Chambal Sanctuary, invoking Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Forest Department had issued multiple notices since 2003, but the college continued the discharge

IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2024 INSC 1786 March 2024Directions issued

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

VANASHAKTIversusUNION OF INDIA

2025 INSC 9615 August 2025Case Partly allowed

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

STATE OF NCT OF DELHIversusSANJAY

2014 INSC 6024 September 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) bars prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for theft of sand and gravels from riverbeds. The Court held that offences under Section 21 of the MMDR Act (contravention of mining lease conditions) are distin

IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2022 INSC 6353 June 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined applications arising from a Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report on illegal mining in Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, Rajasthan, and the broader issue of eco‑sensitive zones (ESZ) around protected forests. It affirmed that the State must act as a trustee of natural resources under the P

STATE OF KERALA & ANR.versusP.V. MATHEW (DEAD) BY L.RS.

2012 INSC 1582 April 2012Dismissed

The State of Kerala sought to confiscate a vehicle used by the accused to transport ivory obtained from the illegal killing of wild elephants, invoking Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The vehicle was seized in 1996 and the District Judge, upheld by the High Court, set aside the confiscation, holding that iv

SANJAY DUTT & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2025 INSC 341 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

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

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search