Supreme Court of India
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1versusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 254
- Decided
- 15 April 2013
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
A second natural habitat for the Asiatic lion is essential for its long‑term conservation, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests must effect the translocation to Kuno, while the order to import African cheetahs is illegal and quashed.
Summary
The Court examined a petition seeking direction to relocate the critically endangered Asiatic lion from its sole habitat in Gir, Gujarat, to Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh, as a second home for long‑term survival. Scientific studies by the Wildlife Institute of India and the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) identified Kuno as the most suitable historic habitat, and the State of Madhya Pradesh had already undertaken extensive village rehabilitation and forest de‑notification. Gujarat opposed the translocation, arguing inadequate prey base, climate, and tiger presence, while the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) also planned to introduce African cheetahs to Kuno, a move challenged as illegal. The Court held that the NBWL’s scientific view prevails over the State Board, that a second habitat is essential under the Wildlife Protection Act and constitutional duties, and that MoEF’s cheetah decision violated statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court directed MoEF to constitute an expert committee and proceed with the lion translocation within six months, and quashed the order to import cheetahs. The judgment also emphasized the need for exclusive parliamentary legislation for endangered‑species recovery programmes.
Issues considered
- The necessity and legality of translocating Asiatic lions from Gir to Kuno under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
- The authority of the National Board for Wildlife versus the State Board for Wildlife in deciding on species translocation.
- The legality of the Ministry of Environment and Forests' decision to introduce African cheetahs to Kuno before lion translocation.
- Whether the State of Gujarat can lawfully refuse to provide lions for translocation.
- The applicability of constitutional provisions (Arts. 21, 48A, 51A(g)) and international conventions to the protection of endangered species.
- The requirement for exclusive parliamentary legislation for endangered‑species recovery programmes.
Legislation cited
- Biological Diversity Act, 2002
- Constitution of Indias. Art.21, s. Art.48A, s. Art.51A(g)
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. 2
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972s. 11, s. 12, s. 2(36), s. 2(37), s. 40, s. 41, s. 42, s. 5A, s. 5C, s. 6, s. 8, s. 9
Subjects
Asiatic liontranslocationwildlife conservationWildlife Protection ActNational Board for Wildlifeex‑situ conservationenvironmental lawpublic trust doctrinebiodiversityspecies preservationforest conservationIUCN guidelinescheetah introductionsecond habitatendangered speciesArticle 21Article 48AArticle 51A(g)
Judgment
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 757
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
I.A. No. 100
In
Writ Petition (Civil} No. 337 of 1995 B
APRIL 15, 2013
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]
c
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972:
Ex-situ conservation - Translocation of Asiatic Lion
(Panthera Leo Persica) - To Kuno wildlife Sanctuary in State
of Madhya Pradesh - From Gir forest in the State of Gujarat, 0
the single habitat of Asiatic Lion - For providing second
natural habitat for long term conservation of Asiatic Lion -
State of Gujarat not agreeing for the proposal of translocation
- Interlocutory application for direction to the State of Gujarat
to translocate the Lions as per the plan - Held: For long term E
conservation of Asiatic Lion, an endangered specie, it is
necessary to provide it a second home - Kuno, is the
historical habitat of Asiatic Lions, and all steps have been
taken for making Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary fit for re-introduction
of Asiatic Lion with the approval of National Board for Wildlife
·(NBWL) - Animals in the wild are the properties of the nation F
- No State, can claim ownership or possession over them -
NBWL having been constituted by Central Government, its
views shall prevail over the views of State Board for wildlife,
Gujarat constituted by the State Government - Direction to
Ministry of Environment and Forest to take urgent steps for G
re-introduction of Asiatic Lion from Gir forest to Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary, in accordance with guidelines issued by IUCN and
with active participation of experts in the field - Bio-diversity
757 H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A Act, 2002 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Articles 48A and 51A(g).
Decision of Ministry of Environment and Forests to import
Arican Cheetahs from Namibia to India - To be introduced
at Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary before reintroduction of Aisiatic
8
lions from Gir forest- Interlocutory application objecting to the
decision - Held: The decision is arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of the statutory requirements provided under the
wildlife Protection Act.
C Environmental Law - Preservation and protection of
endangered species - Need for parliamentary legislation -
Direction to Government of India and Ministry of Environment
and Forests to take urgent steps for preservation of the
endctngered species identified by National Wildlife Action
D Plan 2002-2016 and to initiate recovery programmes -
Direction also to identify all endangered species of flora and
fauna, study their needs, their environs and habitats to
establish the current level of security and the nature of threats.
E Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.21 - Right to life -
Scope of - Conservation and protection of environment is an
inseparable part of right to life - Environmental Law.
Words and Phrases - 'Wild Life' - Meaning of, in the
context of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
F
The Wildlife Institute of India (Wll), an autonomous
institution under the Ministry of environment and Forests
(MoEF), Government of India, conducted research at the
Gir Forest in the State of Gujarat, through its biologists,
G for the better management of the Gir Forest enhancing
the prospects for the long term conservation of lions at
Gir, a single habitat of Asiatic lion. The data collected by
biologists highlighted the necessity of a second natural
habitat for its long term conservation. In a workshop held
H in October, 1993, three alternative sites were suggested
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 759
OF INDIA
for re-introduction of Asiatic lions. After survey of the A
three sites, Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of
Madhya Pradesh was found to be the most suitable site
for re-introduction in establishing a free ranging
population of Asiatic lions, as Kuno was historical
distribution range of Asiatic lions. B
The State of Madhya Pradesh undertook massive
rehabilitation package for the villagers settled in and near
Kuno, so as to push forward the scheme. The State
Government of Gujarat did not agree with the proposal C
for translation of the lions from Gujarat to Kuno.
Since nothing transpired despite the fact that crores
of rupees were spent by the Government for the re·
introduction protect, the present intervention application
(IA No.100) in Writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 337 of 1995) was D
filed seeking a direction to the respondents to implement
the relocation programme. Another I. A.No. 3452 in
W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 was filed by Amicus Curiae
objecting to the decision of MoEF to introduce African
'Cheetah' to Ku no before translocation of the Asiatic lions E
from Gir forest
Allowing the Interlocutory applications, the Court
HELD: I.A. No.100 in W.P. No.337 of 1995:
F
1.1. All efforts must be made to implement the spirit
and provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; the
provisions of which are salutary and are necessary to be
implemented to maintain ecological chain and balance.
The Stockholm Declaration, the Declaration of United G
Nations, Conventions on Human Environment signed in
the year 1972, to which India is the signatory, have laid
down the foundation of sustainable development and
urged the nations to work together for the protection of
the environment. Conventions on Biological Diversity,
H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A signed in the year 1962 at Rio Summit, recognized for the
first time in International Law that the conservation of
biological diversity is "a common concern of human
kind" and is an integral part of the development process.
[Para 29] [788-D-G]
B
Sansar Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC
604: 2010 (12) SCR 583 - relied on.
1.2. For achieving the objectives of various
conventions including Convention on Biological
C Diversity (CBD) and also for proper implementation of
IUCN, CITES etc., and the provisions of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, Bio-diversity Act, Forest Conservation
Act etc. in the light of Articles 48A and 51A(g), the
Gov~rnment of India has laid down various policies and
D action plans such as the National Forest Policy (NFP)
1988, National Environment Policy (NEP) 2006, National
Bio-diversity Action Plan (NBAP) 2008, National Action
Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) 2008 and the
Integrated development of wild life habitats and centrally
E sponsored scheme framed in the year 2009 and
integrated development of National Wild-life Action Plan
(NWAP) 2002-2016. The 'Integrated Development of Wile
Life Habitat' under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of
2009 and the NWAP (2002-2016) have to be read along
F with the provisions of the Wile Life (Conservation) Act.
[Para 32] [789-G-H; 790-A-C]
Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited, T. N.
Godavarman Thirumutpad vs. Union of India and Ors. (2011)
7 sec 338: 2011 (7) SCR 954 - relied on.
G
1.3. Keeping in view the necessity for ensuring better
protection of wildlife outside the protected areas and
initiating recovery programmes for saving critically
endangered species and habitats, a comprehensive
H Centrally Sponsored Scheme titled 'Integrated
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 761
OF INDIA
Development of Wildlife Habitats' has been made A
operational on 30.7.2009 which was in addition to the
erstwhile Centrally Sponsored Scheme - 'Assistance for
the Development of National Parks and Sanctuaries'. The
scheme incorporated additional components and
activities for implementing the provisions of the Wildlife B
(Protection) Act, 1972, the National Wildlife Action Plan
(2002-2016), recommendations of the Tiger Task Force,
2005 and the National Forest Commission, 2006 and the
necessities felt from time to time for the conservation of
wildlife and biodiversity in the country. [Para 35] [792-G- c
H; 793-A-C]
1.4. The Centrally Sponsored Scheme, specifically
refers to the Asiatic lions as a critically endangered
species and highlighted the necessity for a recovery
programme to ensure the long term conservation of lions. D
NWAP 2002-2016 and the Centrally Sponsored Scheme
2009 relating to integrated development of wildlife
habitats are schemes which have statutory status and
have to be implemented in their letter and spirit. [Para 37]
[793-F-H] · E.
Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited, T. N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. (2011)
7 SCC 338: 2011 (7) SCR 954 - relied on.
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and F
Ors. (2012) 3SCC 277: 2012 (3) SCR 460 - referred to.
1.5. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not
only the human rights but also casts an obligation on
human beings to protect and preserve a specie becoming
extinct, conservation and protection of environment is an G
inseparable part of right to life. The State, as a custodian
of the natural resources, has a duty to maintain them not
merely for the benefit of the public, but for the best
interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and so on. The doctrine
of 'public trust' has to be addressed in that perspective. H:
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A [Para 41] [795-D-E, E-F]
M. C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388:
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12 - relied on.
1.6. The human beings have a duty to prevent the
B species from going extinct and have to advocate for an
effective species protection regimes. NWAP 2002-2016
and the Centrally Sponsored Scheme 2009 indicate that
there are many animal species which are close enough
to extinction and some of the other species have already
c disappeared from this earth. No species can survive on
the brink of extinction indefinitely and that the continued
existence of any specie depends upon various factors
like human-animal conflict, epidemics, forest fire and
other natural calamities etc. [Para 48] [795-H; 796-A-B]
D 1.7. The Wildlife Biologists of Wildlife Institute of India
(Wll), an autonomous body under the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF), after conducting a
research on Gir Forests, noticed the necessity for long
term conservation of Asiatic lion in Gir and also
E highlighted the necessity of a second natural habitat for
its long term conservation. Population and Habitat
Analysis Workshop held at Baroda in October, 1993 also
highlighted that fact. National Board for Wildlife (NBWL),
has taken a consistent view in all its meetings about the
F necessity of a second habitat for Asiatic Lion, an
endangered species. Asiatic Lion, has been restricted to
only one single habitat, i.e. the Gir National Forest and its
surrounding areas and an outbreak of possible epidemic
or natural calamity might wipe off the entire species. A
G smaller population with limited genetic strength are more
vulnerable to diseases and other catastrophes in
comparison to large and widespread population. Threat,
therefore, is real and has proved by the outbreak of
canine distemper in the lions of Serengeti NP, Tanzania
H in 1994. It was felt that if an epidemic of this scale were
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 763
OF INDIA
to affect the lions in Gir, it would be very difficult to save A
them from extinction, given the much smaller area of the
Gir forests and the smaller lion population. The possibility
of the decease spreading to the pockets of habitat such
as Girnar, Mityala, Rajula, Kodinar and the surrounding
areas, cannot be ruled out. [Para 43] [796-8-G] B
1.8. There is uniformity in the vie.ws expressed by the
Bio-Scientists of Wll, NBWL, MoEF and other experts that
to have a second home for the endangered species like
Asiatic Lion is of vital importance. A detailed study has C
been conducted to find out the most suitable habitat for
its re-introduction and Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya
Pradaesh, has been found to be the most ideal habitat.
[Para 44] [796-H; 797-A-B]
1.9. No State, organisation or person can claim D
ownership or possession over wild animals in the forest.
Wild Animal is defined under the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972 under Section 2(36) to mean any animal specified in
schedules I to IV and found wild in nature. 'Wild Life' has
been defined under Section 2(37) to include any animal, E..
bees, butterflies, crustacean, fish and moths, and or land
vegetation which forms part of any habitat. Section 9
prohibits hunting of wild animals, specified in Schedule I,
II, Ill and IV except as provided under Section 11 i!tnd
Section 12. Section 40 of the Act obliges a person to make F
a declaration and Section 41 enables the Chief Wild Life
Warden to make an enquiry and preparation of inventories
and Section 42 deals with the issue of certificates and
confers, no ownership of the wild animals to a particular
State or others. Animals in the wild are properties of the G
nation for which no state can claim ownership and the
State's duty is to protect the wild life and conserve it, for
ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the
country. [Para 45] [797-C-F]
1.10. Several migratory birds, mammals, and animals H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A in wild, cross national and international borders created
by man and every nation have a duty and obligation to
ensure their protection. No nation or organisation can
claim ownership or possession over them, the
Convention on the conservation of migratory species of
B wild animals held at Bonn, 1979, supports this principle
and the convention recognises that wild animals in their
innumerable forms are irreplaceable part of the earth;
natural system and must be conserved for the good of
the mankind. It has recognised that the States ara and
c must be the protectors of the migratory species of wild
animals that live within or pass through their national
jurisdictional boundaries. Convention highlights that
conservation and effective management of migratory
species of wild animals require the concerted action of
all States within the national jurisdictional boundaries of
0
which such species spend any part of their life cycle.
India is also a signatory to that convention. [Para 46] [797·
G-1'1; 798-A·B]
1.11. State Board for Wildlife, Gujarat (SBWL,
E Gujarat), which has been constituted by the State
Government under Section 6 of the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972, did not agree with the proposal for
translocation of lion fro.m Gujarat to Kuno, a stand
endorsed by the State of Gujarat. The views of NBWL
F constituted by the Central Government in exercise of its
powers conferred under Section 5A of the Wildlife
Protection Act, have to prevail over the views expressed
by SBWL. The duties conferred on the National Board
under Section 5C of the Act and on the State Board under
G Section 8 of the Act are entirely different. Statutorily, it is
the duty of NBWL to promote conservation and
development of wildlife with a view to ensuring ecological
and environmental security in the country. Legislation in
its wisdom has conferred a duty on NBWL to provide
H conservation and development of wild life and forests.
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT Ll\W, WWF-1 v. UNION 765
OF INOIA
NBWL is, therefore, the top most scientific body A
established to frame policies and advise the Central and
State Governments on the ways and means of promoting
wild life conservation and to review the progress in the
field of_ wild life conservation in the country and
suggesting measures for improvement thereto. The B
Central and the State Governments cannot brush aside
its opinion without any cogent or acceptable reasons. The
decisions taken by NBWL that Asiatic Lion should have
a second home to save it from extinction, due to
catastrophes like epidemic, large forest fire etc; which c
could result in extinction, is justified. (Paras 28, 48 and
50] [788-B-~; 800-A-B; 798-G; 799-D-H]
1.12. Reintroduction of an animal or plant into the
habitat from where it has become extinct is also known
as ex-situ conservation. India has successfully achieved D
certain re-introduction programmes, for example, the
Rhino from Kaziranga, re-introduction of Gangetic gharial
in the rivers of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan etc. Re-
introduction of an organism is the intentional movement
of an organism into a part of its native range from which E
it has disappeared or become extirpated in historic times
as a result of human activities or natural catastrophe.
Kuno was proved to be a historical habitat of Asiatic
Lions. [Paras 51 and 52) (800-D-G]
F
1.13. After survey of the potential status for re-
introduction of Asiatic Lion, a final report was submitted
by Wll, which was published on 31.1.1995, whereby Kuno
Wildlife Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh) emerged as the
most suitable habitat for re-introduction of the Asiatic lion. G
The Council of Ministers approved the project on
28.2.1996. Between 1996 and 2001, 24 villages with about
1547 families had been translocated from the sanctuary
by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department. Government
of Madhya Pradesh had also demarcated 1280 sq. kms.
H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Kuno Wildlife Division, encompassing the Sironi, Agra
and Morawan forest ranges around the sanctuary.
Government of India vide its order dated 21.1.1997
ordered diversion of 3720.9 hectares of forest land,
including 18 villages were protected under Section 2 of
B the Forest Conservation Act. A 20-years Project
envisaged by the Government of India was also
approved by NBWL in its meeting held on 10.3.2004. The
Government of Madhya Pradesh took up a massive re-
location of villages and giving them alternative sites.
c Government of India has spent a sum of Rs.15 crores for
the said purpose. Thus all possible steps have been
taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh, MoEF and the
Union of India making Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary fit for re-
introduction of Asiatic lion, with the approval of NBWL.
[Paras 52 and 53) [800-G-H; 801-A-E]
0
1.14. Re-introduction of Asiatic lion should be in
accordance with the guidelines issued by IUCN and with
the active participation of experts in the field of re-
introduction of endangered species. MoEF is therefore
E directed to take urgent steps for re-introduction of Asiatic
Lion from Gir forests to Kuno. MoEF has to constitute an
Expert Committee consisting of senior officials of MoEF,
Chief Wildlife Wardens of the States of Madhya Pradesh
and Gujarat. Technical experts should also be the
F members of the Committee. Any other expert can also be
co-opted as the members of the Committee. The number
of lions to be re-introduced would depend upon the
density of prey base and other related factors, which the
Committee will assess. [Para 61) [808-C-F]
G
I.A. No. 3452 of 2012 in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995:
2. The decision taken by MoEF for introduction of
African Cheetahs before introduction of Asiatic Lion to
Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, is arbitrary, illegal and in clear
H violation of the statutory requirements provided under the
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 767
OF INDIA
Wildlife Protection Act. MoEF has not conducted any A
detailed study before passing the order of introducing
foreign cheetah to Kuno. Kuno is not a historical habitat
for African cheetahs. No materials have been placed
before the Court to establish that fact. A detailed scientific
study has to be done before introducing a foreign B
species to India, which has not been done in the instant
case. NBWL, which is Statutory Board established for the
purpose under the Wildlife Protection Act was also not
consulted. The order of MoEF to introduce African
Cheetahs into Kuno cannot stand in the eye of law and C
the same is quashed. [Paras 59 and 60] [807-E-H; 808-A]
3. There is necessity of an exclusive parliamentary
legislation for the preservation and protection of
endangered species so as to carry out the recovery
programmes before many of the species become extinct. D
NWAP (2002-2016) has already identified species like the
Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Dugong; the
Manipur Brow Antlered Deer, over and above Asiatic
Lion and Wild Buffalo as endangered species and hence,
the Government of India and the MoEF are directed to E
take urgent steps for the preservation of those
endangered species as well as to initiate recovery
programmes. The Government of India and the MoEF are
also directed to identify all endangered species of flora
and fauna, study their needs and survey their environs
F
and habitats to establish the current level of security and
the nature of threats. They should also conduct periodic
reviews of flora and fauna species status, and correlate
the same with the IUCN Red Data List every three years.
Courts and environmentalists should pay more attention
for implementing the recovery programmes and the same G
be carried out with imagination and commitment. [Para
63] [808-H; 809-A-E]
Case Law Reference:
2010 (12) SCR 583 · relied on Para 29 H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R
A 2011 (7) SCR 954 relied on Paras 32
2012 (3) SCR 460 referred to Para 37
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12 relied on Para 41
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 100
B
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 337 of 1995.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
c
WITH
IA No. 3452 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995.
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, P.S. Narasimha, (A.G.) T.S. Deobia,
D Raj Panjwani, Shyam Divan, Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa, Kiran
Bhardwaj, B.K. Prasad, Asha G. Nair, Md. Khithey, D.S. Mahra,
Vijay Panjwani, Rahul Choudary, Aditya Shamlal, Anitha
Shenoy, Hemantika Wahi, Nirman Sharma, Jesal, Gaurav
Agrawal, K. Parameshwar, Haris Beeran, P.K. Manohar, Rajeev
E K. Dubey, Shiv Prakash Pandey, Kamlendra Mishra, Vibha
Dutta Makhija for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Application for Intervention
F is allowed.
1. We have been called upon to decide the necessity of a
second home for Asiatic Lion (Panthera Jeo persica), an
endangered species, for its long term survival and to protect
G the species from extinction as issue rooted on eco-centrism,
which supports the protection of all wildlife forms, not just those
which are of instrumental value to humans but those which have
intrinsic worth.
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v_ UNION 769
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
FACTS: A
2. The Wildlife Institute of India (for short 'Wll'), an
autonomous institution under the Ministry of Environment and
Forests (for short 'MoEF'), Government of India, through its
wildlife Biologists had done considerable research at the Gir B
Forest in the State of Gujarat since 1986. All those studies
were geared to provide data which would help for the better
management of the Gir forest and enhance the prospects for
the long term conservation of lions at Gir, a single habitat of
Asiatic lion in the world. The data collected by the Wildlife C
Biologists highlighted the necessity of a second natural habitat
for its long term conservation. Few of the scientists had
identified the Asiatic lions as a prime candidate for a re- -
introduction project to ensure its long term survival. In October
1993, a Population and Habitat Analysis Workshop was held
at Baroda, Gujarat. Various issues came for consideration in D
that meeting and the necessity of a second home for Asiatic
lions was one of the issues deliberated upon in that meeting.
Three alternative sites for re-introduction of Asiatic lions were
suggested for an intensive survey, the details of which are given
below: E
1. Darrah-Jawaharsagar Wildlife Sanctuary
(Rajasthan)
2. Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary (Rajasthan)
F
3. Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh)
3. The Research Advisory Committee of Wll recognized
the need for a prior survey to assess the potential of those sites.
Accordingly, a field survey was conducted. Surveys of the three G
sites were made during winter as well as summer, to assess
water availability during the summer and also to ascertain the
changes in human impact on the habitat during the seasons.
The surveyors concentrated on ascertaining the extent of forest
area in and adjoining the chosen protected areas with the aim H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A of establishing the contiguity of the forested habitat. Attempts
were also made to establish the relative abundance of wild
ungulate prey in the three sites based on direct sightings as
well as on indirect evidence. An assessment of the impact on
the people and their livestock on habitat quality in all three sites
B was also made. Of the three sites surveyed, Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary (for short 'Kuno') was found to be the most suitable
site for re-introduction in establishing a free ranging population
of Asiatic lions. A draft report to that effect was prepared by
eminent Scientists like Ravi Chellam, Justus Joshwa, Christy
c A. Williams and A. J. T. Johnsingh on behalf of Wll. The report
revealed that the Kuno was a historical distribution range of
Asiatic lions. Report also highlighted the necessity of a long
term commitment of resources, personnel, the necessity of a
comprehensive rehabilitation package, adequate staff and
facilities. Committee did not consider the presence of tigers
0
in Ku.no to be a major limiting factor, especially since the tigers
occur in such low numbers and density. Since lions live in stable
social units, report highlighted that it is important to take lions
for the translocation also from a single pride. Further, it was also
E pointed out that genetic consideration would not be a major
factor, provided fresh male lions are moved from Gir to Kuno
every three to five years and the resident males in Kuno
selectively captured for Zoos.
4. State of Madhya Pradesh then undertook a massive
F rehabilitation package for the villagers settled in and near Kuno
so as to push forward the scheme of relocation of Asiatic lions
in Kuno. It was noticed that about 1545 families of 24 revenue
villages were living inside Kuno and they had to be rehabilitated
outside the sanctuary. Since suitable and sufficient revenue
G land was not available in adjoining areas, it was decided to
relocate those villages on degraded protected forests. Since
proposed site of resettlement fell in various blocks of protected
forest, the use as a rehabilitation purpose involved a legal
obligation to obtain prior sanction from MoEF under Section 2
H of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 771
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
5. The Secretary (Forests), Government of Madhya A
Pradesh, therefore, sent a letter dated 24. 7 .1996 to MoEF
seeking final approval of the Central Government in accordance
with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. MoEF, after
examining the request of the State of Madhya Pradesh,
conveyed its approval under Section 2 of the Forest B
(Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of 3720.9 hectare of
forest land for rehabilitation of 18 villages located inside the
Kuno, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Out of 3720.9
hectare of the 13-forest compartments, 3395.9 hectare forest
area of 12 compartments was finally approved by the c
Government of India for de-notification. Compartment No. P-
442 of Um_arikaia forest block was left .out from the original
proposal by Government of India letter dated 1.2.2000 and
hence, the released area in first phase had been de-notified
after due permission from the Government of India. Forest area 0
of 1263.9 hectare released in the second phase could not be
de-notified for want of permission from the Government of India.
The Government of India constituted a Monitoring Committee
for the effective implementation of the Asiatic Lion
Reintroduction Project at Kuno which met on 10.3.2004. The E
Survey report of Wll was discussed in the meeting and it was
noticed that Kuno Paipur Sanctuary of M.P. was identified as
the project site/and a 20 year project was conceived in three
phases as below:
a. Phase I (1995-2000 A.O.) Village relocation and F
habitat development.
b. Phase II (2000-2005) Fencing at the side,
translocation, research and monitoring.
c. Phase Ill (2005-2015) Eco-development. G
It was pointed out in the meeting that, currently, the project
was in Phase II and 18 villages had been rehabilitated from
Kuno. Further, in the meeting, the Chief Wildlife Warden of
<:3ujarat had, however, opined that there was no commitment H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A on the part of the State of Gujarat for providing lions and the
State Government had not agreed for the same Based on the
discussion, the Chairman summed up the consensus which
emerged out of the deliberations as follows:
1. A letter from MOS, MoEF should be sent to the Chief
B
Minister of Gujarat, highlighting the project justification with
a request to provide lions for translocation to Kuno Palpur
Sanctuary.
2. State of Gujarat should be provided with a set of project
c documents.
3. The Chief Wildlife Warden, MP should prepare a road
map with a final detail for translocation of lions from Gir to
"-uno.
D 4. An assessment of prey base in Kuno should be done
byWll.
5. No further expenditure should be incurred with a focus
on lion; however, funding support for habitat improvement/
E welfare initiatives for other wild animals can continue.
6. The scheme for rehabilitation of villagers was prepared
by the centrally sponsored "Beneficiary-oriented Scheme for
Tribal Developmenr. It was stated in the scheme that a total of
F more than Rs.1545 lacs would be required for the satisfactory
re-location of 1545 families of 24 villages out of the limit of
Kuno. Out of 1545 lacs, 1061 lacs had been spent on relocation
process. Balance 484 lacs were required to be released for
the remaining rehabilitation works. The Chief Wildlife Warden,
G M.P. had certified the said expenditure.
7. Wll, in the meantime, had made a detailed assessment
of prey population for lion re-location in Kuno. It was noticed
that since re-location of villages from Kuno was complete,
Government of M.P. was keen to assess the prey base in the
H sanctuary so as to plan obtaining lions from Gujarat for re-
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 773
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN. J.]
introduction as early as possible. For the said purpose, the task A
of evaluating for wild prey base was entrusted to Wll.
Consequently, the faculty from Wll, with the help of 34 forest
staff, had undertaken the study of ungulates in Kuno under the
guidance of Dr. Raghu Chundawat and carried out the prey
assessment exercise from 2.1.2005 to 8.1.2005 and 8.2.2005 B
to 13.2.2005. A report was filed in June 2006 (July 2006). The
Minister of MoEF sent a letter dated 20.7.2006 to the Chief
Minister of Gujarat for translocation of two numbers of lions to
Kuno. The Chief Minister of Gujarat vide his letter dated
30.4.2006 replied stating that the matter had been placed c
before the concerned department for further views. But nothing
had been transpired in spite of the fact that crores and crores
of rupees were spent by the Government of India for re-location
of villages, de-notifying the reserve forest and so on which led
to the filing of this public interest litigation seeking a direction 0
to the respondents to implement the re-location programme as
recommended. by Wll, and approved by the Government of
India.
8. The Minister for Tribal Welfare, Forests and
Environment, Government of Gujarat vide his D.O. letter dated E
18.8.2007 had indicated that it was not possible for the State
Government to agree to the proposal for creation of a second
home at Kuno in Madhya Pradesh for Asiatic Lions. When the
matter came up for consideration before this Court on
30.11.2007 and this Court passed the following order: F
"There was a proposal for translocation of some of
the Asiatic Lions found in the Gir National Park to a forest
in Madhya Pradesh. The State of Gujarat has raised
certain objections. The State of Madhya Pradesh wants to G
file its response ...... The proposal is directed to be
submitted to the National Board for Wildlife. NBWL may
consider the objections of State of Gujarat and response
of Madhya Pradesh and submit is recommendation in this
court in four months."
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 9. NBWL then convened a meeting on 18.2.2008 under
the Chainnanship of Hon'ble Minister of State for Forests and
Wildlife. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat infonned the Board
about the various steps taken by the State Government for
providing protection to Lions and their habitat and submitted
B as follows:
(a) That Kuno Palpur has a population of 6 to 8 tigers
and co-existence of large cats of almost equal size
was unlikely.
C (b) That Lions world over are known to prefer
grasslands in sub-topical to near sub-tropical
climates with nonnal temperature during hot period
below 42 degree C. (approx) while Kuno is known
to have hot climate during summer with temperature
D exceeding 45 degree C. for a number of days.
(c) The prey base at Kuno is also not adequate enough
for the lions.
(d) Lions are increasing in number and geographical
E distribution in vicinity of Gir in Amreli & Bhavnagar
districts. This is a natural increase in home range
of lions, which is well received by local population.
Besides, Gir National Park and Gir-Paniya-Mithiyal
Sanctuary and Devalia Interpretation Park, lions
F have made home in Gimar, grasslands of
Savarkundla, Palitana and Mahuva hills and in the
coastal region of Jafrabad and Rajula in Amreli
districts, Mahuva and Palitana talukas of Bhavnagar
district.
G
(e) The Barda Sanctuary area is being effectively
prepared as home for lion with vegetation having
improved while spotted deer are introduced.
(f) The natural expansion of home range being the
H effective way of establishing natural Meta
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 775
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
population that infrequently interact among A
populations located at different places in Gir
region. Thus effectively isolated populations which
may still received genetic inputs from the base
populations are establishing, providing efficient
method of conservation. B
(g) During the year 2007-2008, Government of Gujarat
has launched a special programme for
conservation of lion with the Hon'ble Chief Minister
of Gujarat announcing a five year action plan
package of Rs.40 crore for lion conservation which C
includes increase in protection force, habitat
management, raising awareness to enlist people's
participation etc.
10. The Chairman, NBWL then sought the opinion of the D
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the points raised by the
Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat.
11. The Additional PCCF (WL), Government of Madhya
Pradesh informed that the Kuno was waiting for the release of E
lions from Gujarat and that the Madhya Pradesh Government
had taken all the necessary measures to make Kuno the ideal
second home for the lions. Further, it was pointed out that the
State had already relocated 24 villages from the sanctuary for
the said purpose. Further, it was pointed out that Kuno was F
suggested as a second home for lions after due scientific
studies conducted by Wll and the Kuno had posed no threat to
the conservation of lions. Further, it was also pointed out that
the prey base was in plenty in Kuno and he requested that the
lions be translocated to Kuno at the earliest.
G
12. Dr. Asad Rehmani, Director, Bombay Natural History
Society and member of the Standing Committee pointed out
that sporadic presence of tiger in Kuno was in no case
detrimental to re-introduction of lions. Dr. Divyabhanusinh
Chavda, member of the Standing Committee had also H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A emphasized the fact that there was a need to create a second
home for lions. Dr. Chavda cited an example of the death of
large number of lions in the Serengeti National Park at Tanzania
and other areas in Africa due to epidemics. Dr. Chavda
cautioned, it could happen at Gir as well. Rest of the members
B of the Standing Committee also supported the decision for
translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno. The Standing
Committee of NBWL recorded that it was unanimously
recommended for translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno.
13. The State of Gujarat filed a detailed affidavit before
C this Court on 4.4.2009 stating that the State had objected to
the translocation of lions and that the decision of the Standing
Committee was not unanimous. Further, it was also pointed out
that there was no sufficient prey base at Kuno so as to receive
lions.
D
14. This Court, after perusing the affidavit filed by the
States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh as well as MoEF, again
passed an order dated 22.4.2009 directing NBWL to have a
fresh look on the subject and file a report. It was also ordered
E that NBWL should hear both the States, if necessary before
filing the report. The additional affidavit filed by the State of
Gujarat was also placed for consideration before NBWL in its
meeting held on 17.7.2009. In that meeting, the Chief Wildlife
Warden and the Principal Secretary {Forests) were present on
F behalf of the State of Gujarat. After detailed discussion, the
Standing Committee of NBWL had unanimously decided to
have an in-house technical discussion on the subject before
taking a final view. The technical discussion was, therefore, held
during the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee which was
G convened on 16.9.2009. In that meeting, the representatives of
the Government of Madhya Pradesh {Additional Chief
Secretary and Chief Wildlife Warden), Government of Gujarat
{Principal Secretary- Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden) along
with non-official members of the Standing Committee of
National Board of Wildlife were also present during the
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 777
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
discussions. The following decisions were taken in the technical A
discussion held on 16.9.2009:
"TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE
TRANSLOCATION OF ASIATIC LION FROM GIR TO
KUNO PALPUR B
It was followed by discussion on Agenda Item Nc.4
Member Secretary apprised the Cor.1rnittee that
during the last meeting it was decid<:!d to have detailed
technical discussion on the issue of translocation of lions C
to Madhya Pradesh (M.P.} in Kuno Palpur Sanctuary.
Chairman observed that the issue is not mere
translocation of lions from Gujarat to M.P. but also the long
term viability of survival of the transiocated lions. He also
pointed out that in past lions have been translocated in D
M.P. as well as in U.P. unsuccessfully. Further, at present
tiger conservation in M.P. also requires focused efforts on
the part of the State Government. Under these
circumstances any decision for translocation of lions needs
to be taken very carefully after judicious consultations. E
Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda informed that in the
previous instances of lion's translocation in both the cases,
lions were hunted because they became cattle lifters and
caused acute lion-man conflict in the introduced areas as
the introduced areas were small and devoid of adequate F
prey based. However, this is not the present case. At
present hunting is legally banned and proposed
introduction area is not only having enough prey base but
also devoid of human population. CWLW, M.P. also
informed that Kuno Palpur Sanctuary could accommodate G
even 60 lions as there was about 900 sq. Km of buffer area
around the Sanctuary. There was enough prey base as per
the survey of the State Forest Department. The additional
Chief Secretary, Govt of M.P. submitted that the issue was
not between the two States but was survival of lions and it H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A needs to be provided an alternative home outside 8the
Gujarat State. More than Rs.34.00 crores have already
been spent on the project. In case wild lions are not
available, zoo bred lions could be introduced in the
identified area following soft release as has been
8 proposed in past. Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh was of the opinion
that introduction of zoo bred or captive bred lions in the
wild were not correct approach. The only solution was to
introduce wild population of lions. Dr. Asad Rahmani also
supported these views of Dr Ranjitsinh.
c .
While elaborating the issue of introduction of captive
bred lions, Director, Wll informed that introduction of such
animals in wild is a long drawn process involving 6-12
years. Only filial-2 or filial-3 of the captive bred population
could be introduced in wild through soft release and it
D would require strict monitoring with scientific inputs at all
levels supported with strong political, administrative and
financial commitments. Member Secretary pointed out that
Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred this issue to the
Standing Committee with particular reference to additional
E affidavit filed by Gujarat State Government. Chairman
desired that Ministry could prepare a draft response in the
matter and get ii circulated amongst the members of the
Standing Committee and after incorporating their views,
a decision on the response to be filed before the Hon'ble
F Court would be taken. It was also desired that this draft
should be circulated within one month among all the
members. Chairman also observed that ministry may
restart the earlier approved programme of soft release of
captive bred lions in Kunopalpur."
G
15. The Standing Committee of NBWL then met on
22.12.2009, perused the report of the Technical Committee and
made the following observations:
"It is submitted that in view of the above background,
H the following are the observation of the Standing
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 779
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Committee of National Board for Wildlife on the issue of A
translocation of lion from Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh:
3.1. The population of Asiatic Lions in India has been
restricted to its habitat in the Gir National Park and Gir
Sanctuary alone, where they face threats due to man-
B
animal conflict, outbreak of possible epidemic or any
natural calamity, etc. Such actions may wipe out the whole
population. The need for a second home for the Asiatic
Lions was therefore felt and accordingly, based on habitat
feasibility studies by the Wildlife Institute of India in various C
Protected Areas and forests of Gujarat, Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh, three different sites were finally studied
in greater detail out of which Kuno Palpur sanctuary in
Morena District of Madhya Pradesh was found most
suitable for re-introduction and establishing a second free
ranging population of Asiatic Lion outside Gir. D
3.2. The contention of the Government of Gujarat that
the Lions would not be able to survive in Kuno Palpur due
to its extreme climatic conditions is not true. It may be
mentioned here that the lions have thrived in extreme E
climate from the deserts of Palestine and Arabia to the
cold coniferous forest in Iran in historical times. They were
destroyed not by climate, but by the human action. Lions
exist and survive in a variety of habitats with varied prey
densities, temperatures and vegetation communities F
across their range, and while the overall prey densities of
Gir are in the higher range of lion densities while that of
Kuno are in the medium to low density areas of lions, the
natural prey densities in Kuno are significantly higher than
the natural prey densities in areas in south Saurashtra G
outside the Gir where Lions have now taken residence
and where the State Government wishes to retain them. It
was fro these "outlying" Lion populations outside of the Gir
that translocation to Kuno Palpur was planned. Therefore,
it would be unreasonable to compare Kuno prey densities
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A with that of Gir and then come to a conclusion that Kuno
is unsuitable habitat for lions. It is well within the lion range
of habitats and prey densities currently.
3.3. The Government of Gujarat, vide para 11 of the
additional affidavit, had stated that the wildlife Institute of
B
India has used simple logistic model for projections and
predictions, while presenting population growth of wild
unguiates This contention of the Government of Gujarat is
not appropriate. In fact, models are abstractions of reality
- Simplistic Models have general applications and fewer
c assumptions. Complex models represent specific
ecosystems more realistically but are extremely data
intensive. Data needed for models like the one suggested
by the Government of Gujarat is not available for most
populations in India and therefore remain there academic
D exercises. Model outcomes/recommendations should not
be followed blindly. In any case, an evaluation of prey
densities should be done again prior to the proposed
reintroduction of lions and the reintroduction schedule/plan
appropriately modified to be in tune with the realized rate
E of increase by prey populations of Kuno. It is part of the
original plan and in any case, as noted above, the natural
prey densities in Kuno are higher than in areas where
Lions have taken residence outside of Gir in Gujarat and
where they live mainly by preying on livestock.
F
3.4. The Gir lions have passed through two bottle
necks on about 1 to 4 thousand years ago and another
about 150-200 years ago and are therefore highly inbred.
The reintroduction effort does not end with the introduction
of a pride of lions into Kuno. A continued program of
G
exchange/supplementation of individual lions between Gir
and Kuno is needed at the rate of 2-3 lions per generation.
This supplementation needs to continue till the Kuno lion
population Gene pool nears that of Gir lions. It is envisaged
that such exchanges to last for a minimum duration of 25-
H 30 years but would benefit from continued exchanges over
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 781
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
a longer time scale. The Kunc and Gir. populations could A
be managed as a meta-population that would provide
demographic as well as genetic benefits to the Gir lion
population as well.
3.5. The contention of Government of Gujarat that
B
translocation of Lions made in earlier occasion during
early 20th century and during 1956, especially to the
Chandraprabha Wildlife Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh was
unsuccessful and therefore the present translocation also
would not yield much results is not correct. The reason
being that in the previous instances of Lion's translocation,
c
lions were hunted because they became cattle lifters and
caused acute lion-man conflict in the introduced areas as
the introduced areas were small and devoid of adequate
prey base and burdened with human population. However,
this is not the present case. At present hunting is legally D
banned and proposed introduction area is not only having
enough prey base but also devoid of human population.
Further there are better scientific inputs, full commitment
on the part of State Government of Madhya Pradesh and
required home work has been done. Therefore, present E
relocation is not comparable with earlier efforts.
3.6. The issue of poaching is vital. The Government
of Gujarat has dealt with it quite well. Poaching will continue
to be a threat as long as there is a demand for lionOtiger F
parts. In the Kunc area also the management have to be
much more vigilant with regard to poaching. Further, there
is also a need for a collective action by the Central
Government, State Governments along with a strong
political and bureaucratic commitment as well as full and G
dedicated su.pport of technocrats and scientists for better
and long term conservation of such a species of national
pride and what was once lndi's National Animal.
3.7. The objective of the Government of India is to
conserve Asiatic lions for posterity and this effort does not H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A end by mere introduction of a lion pride to Kuno. It would
be imperative that Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh work
together in designing a Meta-population management plan
based on genetic and demographic data of the Asiatic
lions to ensure that this objective is met. Without this
B cooperative approach, lion conservation objective of the
Nation/World will not be met.
In view of the aforesaid, it is recommended that the
translocation of lions from Gir area to an alternate area,
presently to the Kuno-Palpur Sanctuary, is the necessity
c of the hour essential for conservation of lions for posterity.
As mentioned above, the efforts for conservation of lions
would not stop by mere translocation efforts, but it would
continue through the active involvement of all the
stakeholders."
D
16. The Standing Committee then authorized the MoEF to
file an affidavit to that effect before this Court. Accordingly, an
affidavit was filed before this Court by MoEF on 7.1.2010. State
of Gujarat also filed a detailed affidavit on 12.11.2010. In its
E affidavit, the State of Gujarat highlighted the insufficiency of prey
base at Kunc and the presence of tigers in the occupied area
at Kunc as the major limiting factors. Further, it was also
pointed out that the current Asiatic lion population is not a single
population confined to one place but consists of meta-
F population spread over several locations within the Greater Gir
Region and that good conservation practices and intensive wild
life health care, has lead to epidemic free regime over
generations of wildlife including Asiatic Lion in the area.
17. The State of Gujarat took up the stand that, though the
G issue was discussed by the Standing Committee of NBWL, it
had not been placed before the State Board for Wildlife
(Gujarat), which is a statutory requirement under the Wild Life
(Protection) Act. This Court, therefore, on 27 .2.2012, directed
the State Board to consider the issue of lions' translocation and
H · to submit its report. Accordingly, the matter was placed before
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 783
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the State Board. The State Board took the view that there was A
no threat to Asiatic. Lion in the Gir forest from epidemic
diseases or other such factors. It was pointed out that the
present Asiatic lion population has risen from a broad based
and a reasonably good population has been achieved. Further,
it was pointed out that previous attempts for translocation from B
Gujarat were also a failure and since the Greater Gir region
being an ideal preservation and conservation for Asiatic lions,
there is no necessity of finding out a second home for Asiatic
lion at Kuno.
ARGUMENTS: c
18. We heard Shri Raf Panjwani, learned senior counsel
appearing for the applicant, who submitted that this 20-year
project is hanging on fire due to the indifferent attitude of the
Gujarat Government. Learned senior counsel submitted that D
the necessity of re-introduction of Asiatic lion at Kuno has been
keenly felt and the scientific world has unanimously advocated
for translocation of this endangered species to Kuno for its long
term survival and preservation. Learned senior counsel pointed
out that NBWL, the expert technical body at more than one E
occasions has approved and granted technical sanction to go
ahead with the project, but could not pick up expected
momentum due to the indifferent and defiant attitude of the
State of Gujarat.
19. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing F
for the State of Madhya Pradesh, highlighted the steps taken
by the State of Madhya Pradesh for pushing the project
forward. Learned counsel referred to the various counter
affidavits filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh for completing
the first phase of the project. Necessary sanction has already G
been obtained to declare Kuno as Sanctuary under the Wildlife
Protection Act. MoEF has already granted its approval under
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act for diversion of
3395.~ hectare of forest land for the rehabilitation of eighteen
villages located inside Kuno, subject to fulfillment of certain H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A conditions. The area at Kuna was increased to 1268.861 Sq.
Km in April 2002 by creating a separate Kuna Wildlife Division.
For the above purpose, a total amount of Rs.1545 lakh had
been granted by the Government of India and utilized by the
State Government. Learned counsel also pointed out that
B altogether 24 villages and 1543 families were relocated outside
Kuna by the year 2002-2003 and the lands abandoned by them
have been developed into grass lands.
20. Learned counsel also pointed out that prey density at
Kuna has far exceeded the prey density at Gir. Reference was
C made to the Prey Density Survey conducted during 2004-2005
by Mr. Fiaz A. Khudsar and Mr. Raman in the year 2008. Firstly,
it was pointed out that Wll had also conducted an independent
study in the year 2012, which also supported the stand taken
by the State of Madhya Pradesh that there is sufficient prey
D base to receive sufficient numbers of lions. Over and above,
adequate training has also been given to the forest staff, guards
etc. for receiving the lions and for their upkeep and monitoring.
21. Shri P. K. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor
E General, submitted that the population of Asiatic lion is
increasing at Gir, but there are conceivable threats to their
survival; man-made, natural calamity as well as outbreak of
epidemic, which may wipe out the entire population, due to their
small population base and limited geographical area of spr~ad.
F It is under such circumstances, the need for a second home
for lions was felt, for which Kuna was found to be the most
suitable habitat. However, it was pointed out that the lions could
be translocated only if sufficient number of ungulates is
available and after taking effective measures, such as, control
G of poaching, grassland management, water management,
building rubble wall around the division etc. Learned senior
counsel made reference to the study conducted by the experts
of Wll and Wildlife Trust of India of the programme of re-
introduction of Cheetah in Kuno, on import from Namibia.
Referring to the correspondence between the Ministry of State
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 785
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(External Affairs) and Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, it was A
pointed out that subsequent re-introduction of lions is in no way
expected to affect the cheetah population, which would have
established in the area, by that time.
22. Shri P. S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel and B
learned Amicus Curiae apprised the court of the extreme
urgency for the protection of the Asiatic lion which has been
included in the Red List published by the International Union for
Conservation of Natgure (IUCN) as critically endangered
species, endorsed by NBWL in various meetings. NBWL, being C
the highest scientific statutory body, it commands respect and
its opinion is worthy of acceptance by the MoEF and all the
State Governments. Learned senior counsel also referred to
Artide 48 and Article 51-A of the Constitution of India and
submitted that the State has a duty to protect and improve
environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife in the D
country, a duty cast upon all the States in the Union of India.
Reference was also made to the conservatism in Bio-Diversity
and the Eco-centric principle, which have been universally
accepted. Learned senior counsel also referred to the National
Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2016, and submitted that E
translocation of Asiatic lions has been treated as a priority
project after having found that an alternative home for Asiatic
lion is vital for its survival. Learned senior counsel also
submitted that the National Forest Policy and the Scheme of
2009 and NWAP (2002-2016) and the plans have legislative F
force as decided in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited,
T.N. Godavarman Thirumu/pad v. Union of India and others
(2011) 7 sec 338 case and can be enforced through Courts.
23. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing G
for the State of Gujarat, refuted all those contentions and
reiterated that there is no necessity of finding out a second
home for Asiatic lions, since the population of Asiatic lion has
been properly protected in Greater Gir forest and also in few
other sanctuaries near Gir Forest. Shri Divan submitted that the
H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A population of Asiatic lion has gone up reasonably since broader
conservation methods have been adopted by the State of
Gujarat and that at present, there is no immediate threat to the
Asiatic lions calling for emergency measures, like translocation
or reintroduction. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that
B past experience shows that such translocation of lions ended
in failure and possibility of such recurrence cannot be ruled out,
since Ku no is not well set to accept or preserve an endangered
species like Asiatic lion; which is a success story at Gir.
24. Shri Divan also submitted that, so far, no acceptable
C translocatiori plan has been prepared or implemented for a
successful translocation of an endangered species like Asiatic
lion and the same has been taken note of and commented
upon the State Wildlife Board, Gujarat in its meeting held on
16.3.2012. Shri Divan also submitted that the prey-base studies
D are totally inadequate and not a single study has been
conducted or report placed before this Court to show that the
benchmark of 480,000 kgs. of wild ungulates biomass has been
attained at Kuno. Shri Divan also referred to the note dated
8.72012 submitted by Dr. Ravi Chellam and contended that
E no reliable information was furnished to support the view
regarding adequacy of prey base at Kuno. Shri Divan also
referred to Section 12 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and
submitted that the translocation should be to 'an alternative
suitable habitat". Kuno, according to the learned senior counsel,
F is not a 'suitable habitat', not only due to inadequacy of prey-
base, but also due to factors like presence of tigers, large scale
poaching, unfavourable climate condition. lack of expertise,
human-animal conflict etc.
G 25. Learned senior counsel also referred to the issues
raised by the petitioner through this PIL and contended that it
would not stand the tests laid in Lafarge case (supra), especially
when the State Board of Wild Life has stated cogent reasons
why translocation of lions to Kuno, at present, is not advisable,
H which is fully justified by the objections and independent
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 787
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
scientific material. Such decision, according to the learned A
senior counsel, is not amenable to judicial review and, even
otherwise, no grounds are made out for issuing a. Writ of
Mandamus directing translocation of Asiatic lion from Gir to
Ku no.
B
Legal Framework
26. We will first deal with the constitutional and the legal
framework on which we have to examine the various issues
which have come up for consideration in this case. The subject
"Protection of wild animals and birds" falls under List Ill, Entry C
17B of Seventh Schedule. The Parliament passed The Wild Life
(Protection) Act 53 of 1972 to provide for the protection of wild
animals and birds with a view to ensuring the ecological and
environmental security of the country. The Parliament vide
' Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted Article 48A D
w.e.f. 03.01.1977 in Part IV of the Constitution placing
responsibility on the State "to endeavour to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wild life of the country." Article 51A was also introduced in Part
IVA by the above-mentioned amendment stating that "it shall E
be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve
the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures".
27. By Act 23 of 1982, .Section 12(bb) was inserted in the
F
Wild Life (Protection) Act w.e.f. 21.05.1982 which authorised
the Chief Wild Life Warden to grant a special permit for the·
purpose of scientific management which would include
translocation of any wild animal to an alternative suitable habitat
or population management of wild life without killing or
poisoning or destroying any wild animals. G
28. The Parliament later vide Act 16 of 2003 inserted
Section 5A w.e.f. 22.09.2003 authorizing the Central
Government to constitute the National Board for Wild Life (in
short 'NBWL'). By the same Amendment Act, Section 5C was H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A also introduced eliciting functions of the National Board. Section
5B was also introduced by the aforesaid amendment
authorizing the National Board to constitute a Standing
Committee for the purpose of exercising such powers and
performing such duties as may be delegated to the Committee
B by the National Board. NBWL is, therefore, the top most
scientific body established to frame policies and advise the
Central and State Governments on the ways and means of
promoting wild life conservation and to review the progress in
the field of wild life conservation in the country and suggesting
c measures for improvement thereto. The Central and the State
Governments cannot brush aside its opinion without any cogent
or acceptable reasons. Legislation in its wisdom has conferred
a duty on NBWL to provide conservation and development of
wild life and forests.
D 29. This Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan,
(2010) 10 sec 604 held that all efforts must be made to
implement the spirit and provisions of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972; the provisions of which are salutary and are
necessary to be implemented to maintain ecological chain and
E balance. The Stockholm Declaration, the Declaration of United
Nations, Conventions on Human Environment signed in the year
1972, to which India is the signatory, have laid down the
foundation of sustainable development and urged the nations
to work together for the protection of the environment.
F Conventions on Biological Diversity, signed in the year 1962
at Rio Summit, recognized for the first time in International Law
that the conservation of biological diversity is "a common
concern of human kind" and is an integral part of the
development process.
G
30. The Parliament enacted the Biological Diversity Act in
the year 2002 followed by the National Biodiversity Rules in the
year 2004. The main objective of the Act is the conservation
of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 789
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
utilization of genetic resources. Bio-diversity and biological A
diversity includes all the organisms found on our planet i.e.
plants, animals and micro-organisms, the genes they contain
and the different eco-systems of which they form a part. The
rapid deterioration of the ecology due to human interference
is aiding the rapid disappearance of several wild animal B
species. Poaching and the wildlife trade, habitat loss, human-
animal conflict, epidemic etc. are also some of the reasons
which threaten and endanger some of the species.
31. India is known for its rich heritage of biological diversity C
and has so far documented over 91,200 species of animals.
In India's bio-graphic regions, 45,500 species of plants are
documented as per IUCN Red List 2008. India has many
critically threatened animal species. IUCN has noticed today
the orily living representative of lions once found throughout
much of south-west Asia occurred in India's Gir forest which D
has been noticed as a critically endangered species in IUCN
Red List. The IUCN adopted a resolution of 1963 by which a
multi-lateral treaty was drafted as the Washington Convention
also known as the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973. E
CITES entered into force on 1st July, 1975, which aims to
ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and
plants does not threaten the survival of the species in the wild,
and it accords varying degrees of protection to more than
33,000 species of animals and plants. Appendix 1 of CITES F
refers to 1200 species which are threatened with extinction.
Asiatic lion is listed in Appendix 1 recognizing that species is
threatened with extinction.
32. We notice for achieving the objectives of various G
conventions including Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
and also for proper implementation of IUCN, CITES etc., and
the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, Bio-diversity Act,
Forest Conservation Act etc. in the light of Articles 48A and
51A(g), the Government of India has laid down various policies
H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A and action plans such as the National Forest Policy (NFP)
1988, National Environment Policy (NEP) 2006, National Bio-
diversity Action Plan (NBAP) 2008, National Action Plan on
Climate Change (NAPCC) 2008 and the Integrated
development of wild life habitats and centrally sponsored
B scheme framed in the year 2009 and integrated development
of National Wild-life Action Plan (NWAP) 2002-2016. In Lafarge
case (supra) this Court held that National Forest Policy 1988
be read together with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In
our view, the integrated Development of Wile Life habitat under
c the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of 2009 and the NWAP (2002-
2016) have to be read along with the provisions of the Wile Life
(Conservation) Act.
33. The Prime Minister of India on 1.1.2002, in the XXI
Meeting of the Indian Board for Wildlife, released the 'National
D Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016)' (in short NWAP 2002-2016).
NWAP has highlighted that the wildlife encompasses all
uncultivated flora and undomesticated fauna and every species
has the right to live and every threatened species must be
protected to prevent its extinction. It was noticed with the
E mounting agricultural, industrial and demographic pressures,
wilderness areas, which are the richest repositories of wildlife
and biodiversity have either shrunk or disappeared and their
continued existence is crucial for the long term survival of the
biodiversity and the ecosystems supporting them. NWAP, inter
F alia, highlighted the necessity to protect the long term ecological
security of India and to identify and protect natural ecosystems
from over-exploitation, contamination and degradation. NWAP
has also urged the necessity to give primacy to in situ
conservation which is a sheet anchor of wildlife conservation.
G Ex situ measures in zoological parks and gene banks may
supplement this objective, without depleting scarce wild
resources. NWAP also highlighted the ecological requirements
for the survival of threatened, rare and endangered species
together with their community associations of flora and fauna.
H It also highlighted the imperative necessity to have alternative
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 791
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
homes for highly endangered species like the Great Indian A
Bustard, Bengal Florican, Asiatic Lion, Wild Buffalo, Dugong,
the Manipur Brow Antlered Deer and the like. It was also
noticed that where in situ conservation efforts are unlikely to
succeed, ex situ captive breeding and rehabilitation measures
may be necessary, in tandem with the preparation of their wild B
habitats to receive back captive populations, especially in
respect of lesser-known species where status and distribution
of wild animals are not fully known. NWAP also highlighted the
necessity of taking the following actions:
1. To identify all endangered species of flora and C
fauna, study their needs and survey their environs
and habitats to establish the current level of security
and the nature of threats. Conduct periodic reviews
of flora and fauna species status, and correlate the
same with the IUCN Red Data List every three D
years.
2. Invest special care and resources to protect habitats
that harbour highly endangered species especially
those having single. population and a high degree E
of endemism.
3. Initiate action to prevent the "genetic swamping" of
wild species.
4. To undertake a programme of ex situ captive F
breeding and rehabilitation in the wild for critically
endangered species in accordance with IUCN
guidelines, after developing requisite techniques
and capabilities in this regard.
G
5. To publish flora and fauna species status papers
periodically, which should be translated into local
languages.
6. To declare identified areas around Protected Areas
H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A and corridors as ecologically fragile under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, wherever
necessary.
NWAP also highlighted the priority projects and to initiate a
time-bound plan to identify and conduct status surveys of all
8
endangered species covering all groups of rare and threatened
species of flora and fauna and to provide protection to the
environs and habitats of all rare and threatened species of flora
and fauna under the priority projects. 2.2 of Para 3 of NWAP
read as follows:
c
"2.2. Identify suitable alternative homes for single isolated
populations of species such as Jerdon's Courser, Asiatic
Lion, Manipur Deer, Wroughton's Free Tailed Bat and the
like, and manage the same as Protected Areas effectively."
D
34. NWAP also states that the same is the responsibility
of MoEF, State Governments, Scientific Institutions and NGOs.
The necessity to take immediate steps for preventing the entry
of domestic and feral species that may lead to genetic
E swamping, has also been highlighted. The importance to
safeguard genetically pure populations from future genetic
contamination and where genetic swamping has occurred, to
phase out such swamping, was also highlighted. NWAP, in
chapter IV, has highlighted the necessity to the restoration and
management of degraded habitats outside the protected areas.
F
35. MoEF noticed that the fragmented nature of wildlife rich
areas, increased human pressure, habitat degradation,
proliferation of invasive species, man-animal conflicts,
poaching, impacts of changing climate etc. are some of the
G challenges that has to be addressed at a war footing. The
necessity for ensuring better protection of wildlife outside the
protected areas and initiating recovery programmes for saving
''Critically endangered species and habitats has also been high-
lighted. Keeping that in view, a comprehensive Centrally
H Sponsored Scheme titled 'Integrated Development of Wildlife
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 793
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Habitats' has been made operational on 30.7.2009 which was A
in addition to the erstwhile Centrally Sponsored Scheme -
'Assistance for the Development of National Parks and
Sanctuaries'. The scheme incorporated additional components
and activities for implementing the provisions of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972, the National Wildlife Action Plan (2002- B
2016), recommendations of the Tiger Task Force, 2005 and the
National Forest Commission, 2006 and the necessities felt
from time to time for the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity
in the country. The scheme was formulated during the 11th year
plan. c
36. India has a network of 99 national parks, 515 wildlife
sanctuaries, 43 conservation' reserves and 4 community
reserves in different bio-geographic zones. Many important
habitats, still exists outside those areas, which requires special
attention from the point of view of conservation. The Centrally D
Sponsored Scheme also specifically refers to the recovery
programmes for saving critically endangered species and
habitats. Due to variety of reasons, several species and their
habitats have become critically endangered. Snow leopard,
Great Indian Bustard, Kashmir Stag, Gangetic Dolphin, Nilgiri E
Tahr, Malabar Civet, marine turtles, etc are few examples.
37. The scope of the Centrally Sponsored scheme was
examined in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
and others (2012) 3 sec 277 (Wilde Buffalo case) and this F
Court directed implementation of that scheme in the State of
Chhattisgarh. The centrally sponsored scheme, as already
indicated, specifically refers to the Asiatic lions as a critically
endangered species and highlighted the necessity for a
recovery programme to ensure the long term conservation of G
lions. NWAP 2002-2016 and the Centrally Sponsored Scheme
2009 relating to integrated development of wildlife habitats are
schemes which have statutory status and as held in Lafarge
case (supra) and have to be implemented in their letter and
spirit. While giving effect to the various provisions of the Wildlife
H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Protection Act, the Centrally Sponsored Scheme 2009, the
NWAP 2002-2016 our approach should be eco-centric and not
anthropocentric.
ANTHROPOCENTRIC VS. ECO-CENTRIC
B 38. We may point out that has been wide ranging
discussions and deliberations on the international platforms and
conferences for re-building of certain principles laid down in the
earlier conventions on the Principles of Sustainable
Development. The United Nations Commission on Environment
C and Development defined the 'sustainable development' as
follows:
"Sustainable development is the development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability
0 of future generations to meet their own needs." (World
Commission on Economic Development [WCED], 1987:
43)
39. Sustainable development, it has been argued by
various eminent environmentalists, clearly postulates an
E anthropocentric bias, least concerned with the rights of other
species which live on this earth. Anthropocentrism is always
human interest focussed thinking that non-human has• only
instrumental value to humans, in other words, humans take
precedence and human responsibilities to non-human are
F based benefits to humans. Eco-centrism is nature-centred,
where humans are part of nature and non-humans have intrinsic
value. In other words, human interest does not take automatic
precedence and humans have obligations to non-humans
independently of human interest. Eco-centrism is, therefore, life-
G centred, nature-centred where nature includes both humans and
non-humans.
40. We re-iterate that while examining the necessity of a
second home for the Asiatic lions, our approach should be eco-
H centric and not anthropocentric and we must apply the "species
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 795 ·
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
best interest standard", that is the best interest of the Asiatic A
lions. We must focus our attention to safeguard the interest of
species, as species has equal rights to exist on this earth.
Asiatic Lion has become critically endangered because of
human intervention. The specie originally existed in North Africa
and South-West Asia formerly stretched across the coastal 8
forests of northern Africa and from northern Greece across
south-west Asia to eastern India. Today the only living
representatives of the lions once found throughout much of
South-West Asia occur in India's Gir Forest. Asiatic lion
currently exists as a single sub-population and is thus vulnerable C
to extinction from unpredictable events, such as an epidemic
or large forest fire etc. and we are committed to safeguard this.
endangered species because this species has a right to live
on this earth, just like human beings.
41. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only D
the human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings
to protect and preserve a specie becoming extinct,
conservation and protection of environment is an inseparable
part of right to life. In M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others
(1997) 1 SCC 388, this Court enunciated the doctrine of "public E
trust", the thrust of that theory is that certain common properties
such as rivers, seashores, forests and the air are held by the
Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of
the general public. The resources like air, sea, waters and the
forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole, F
that it would be totally unjustified to make them a subject of
private ownership. The State, as a custodian of the natural
resources, has a duty to maintain them not merely for the benefit
of the public, but for the best interest of flora and fauna, wildlife
and so on. The doctrine of 'public trust' has to be addressed
G
in that perspective.
42. We, as human beings, have a duty to prevent the
species from going extinct and have to advocate for an effective
species protection regimes. NWAP 2002-2016 and the
Centrally Sponsored Scheme 2009 indicate that there are many H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A animal species which are close enough to extinction and some
of the other species have already disappeared from this earth.
No species can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely and
that the continued existence of any species depends upon
various factors like human-animal conflict, epidemics, forest fire
B and other natural calamities etc.
43. The Wildlife Biologists of Wll, after conducting a
research on Gir Forests, noticed the necessity for long term
conservation of Asiatic lion in Gir and also highlighted the
necessity of a second natural habitat for its long term
C conservation. Population and Habitat Analysis Workshop held
at Baroda in October, 1993 also highlighted that fact. NBWL,
as already indicted, has taken a consistent view in all its
meetings about the necessity of a second habitat for Asiatic
lion, an endangered species. Asiatic lion, it has been noticed,
D has been restricted to only one single habitat, i.e. the Gir
National Forest and its surrounding areas and an outbreak of
possible epidemic or natural calamity might wipe off the entire
species. A smaller population with limited genetic strength are
more vulnerable to diseases and other catastrophes in
E comparison to large and widespread population. Threat,
therefore, is real and has proved by the outbreak of canine
distemper in the lions of Serengeti NP, Tanzania in 1994. 85%
of the Serengeti lion population, it was noticed, had Canine
Distemper Virus antibodies and at least 30% of the Serengeti
F and Mara lions died due to the infection. Compared with Gir,
the lion population in the 40,000 sq. km. Serengeti-Mara
ecosystem is large with about 2500 lions. It was felt that if an
epidemic of this scale were to affect the lions in Gir, it would
be very difficult to save them from extinction, given the much
G smaller area of the Gir forests and the smaller lion population.
The possibility of the decease spreading to the pockets of
habitat such as Gimar, Mityala, Rajula, Kodinar and the
surrounding areas, cannot be ruled out.
44. We have already indicated that there is uniformity in
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 797
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the views expressed by the Bio-Scientists of Wll, NBWL, MoEF A
and other experts that to have a second home for the
endangered species like Asiatic lion is of vital importance. A
detailed study has been conducted to find out the most suitable
habitat for its re-introduction and Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (for
short 'Kuno') in Madhya Pradaesh, as already indicted, has B
been found to be the most ideal habitat.
Ownership and Possession of wild Animals
45. No state, organisation or person can claim ownership
or possession over wild animals in the forest. Wild Animal is C
defined under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 under
Section 2(36) to mean any animal specified in schedules I to
IV and found wild in nature. 'Wild Life' has been defined under
Section 2(37) to include any animal, bees, butterflies,
crustacean, fish and moths, and or land vegetation which forms D
part of any habitat. Section 9 prohibits hunting of wild animals,
specified in Schedule I, II, Ill and IV except as provided under.
Section 11 and Section 12. Section 40 of the Act obliges a
person to make a declaration and Section 41. enables the Chief
Wild Life Warden to make an enquiry and preparation of E
inventories and Section 42 deals with the issue of certificates
and confers, no ownership of the wild animals to a particular
state or others. Animals in·the wild are properties of the nation
for which no state can claim ownership and the state's duty is
to protect the wild life and conserve it, for ensuring the F
ecological and environmental security of the country.
46. Several migratory birds, mammals, and animals in wild
cross national and international borders created by man and
every nation have a duty and obligation to ensure their
protection. No nation or organisation can claim ownership or G
possession over them, the Convention on the conservation of
migratory species of wild animals held at Bonn, 1979, supports
this principle and the convention recognises that wild animals
in their innumerable forms are irreplaceable part of the earth;
natural system and must be conserved for the good of the H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A mankind. It has recognised that the states are and must be the
protectors of the migratory species of wild animals that live
within or pass through their national jurisdictional boundaries.
Convention highlights that conservation and effective
management of migratory species of wild animals require the
B concerted action of all states within the national jurisdictional
boundaries of which such species spend any part of their life
cycle. India is also a signatory to that convention.
47. State of Gujarat has taken up the stand that it has got
its own conservation programme in respect of Asiatic lion. Due
C the effective conservation programme carried out by the State
of Gujarat at Gir, it was pointed out, that the number of Asiatic
lions in the wildlife has increased, the range of these lions has
increased, the statutorily protected habitat has increased, so
also the area occupied by these lions has increased. The State
D has maintained the stand that there is no present or immediate
danger to the Asiatic lions warranting any emergency
measures.
48. State Board for Wildlife, Gujarat (SBWL, Gujarat),
E which has been constituted by the State Government under
Section 6 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, convened a
meeting on 16.3.2012 to discuss the issue relating to
translocation of Asiatic lion from Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh.
SBWL, Gujarat and took the view that that the issue of giving
F or not giving lions to Kuna is not an issue of conflict between
States, but it is a collective Indian cultural approach in the
interest of long term conservation of lions as part of our family.
SBWL further maintained the stand that Asiatic Lion being a
"family member" is beyond and higher than the "scientific
G reasoning". SBWL, therefore, did not agree with the proposal
for translocation of lion from Gujarat to Kuno, a stand endorsed
by the State of Gujarat.
49. Approach made by SWBL and the State of Gujarat is
an anthropocentric approach, not eco-centric, though the State
H of Gujarat can be justifiably proud of the fact that it has
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 799
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
preserved an endangered specie becoming extinct. We are, A
however, concerned with a fundamental issue whether the
Asiatic lions should have a second home. The cardinal issue
is not whether the Asiatic lion is a "family member" or is part
of the "Indian culture and civilization", or the pride of a State
but the preservation of an endangered species for which we B
have to apply the "species best interest standard". Our
approach should not be human-centric or family-centric but eco-
centric. "Scientific reasoning" for its re-location has to
supersede the family bond or pride of the people and we have
to look at the species best interest especially in a situation c
where the specie is found to be a critically endangered one and
the necessity of a second home has been keenly felt. We,
therefore, find it difficult to agree with the reasoning of SBWL,
Gujarat and the State of Gujarat that the Asiatic lion is a family
member and hence be not parted with.
D
SO. The views of NBWL constituted by the Central
Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section
SA of the Wildlife Protection Act, have to prevail over the views
expressed by SBWL. The duties conferred on the Natiorial
Board under Section SC of the Act and on the State Board E
under Section 8 of the Act are entirely different. NBWL has a
duty to promote conservation and development of wildlife and
frame policies and advise the Central Government and the
State Governments on the ways and importance of promoting
wildlife conservation. It has to carry out/make assessment of F
various projects and activities on wildlife or its habitat. NBWL
has also to review from time to time the progress in the field of
wildlife conservation in the country and suggest measures for
improving thereto. Those functions have not been conferred on
the State Board. The State Board has been conferred with a G
duty to advise the State Government the selection and
management of areas to be declared as protected areas and
advise the State Government in formation of their policies for
protection and conservation of the wildlife and specify plans etc.
Statutorily, therefore, it is the duty cf NBWL to promote H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A conservation and development of wildlife with a view to
ensuring ecological and environmental security in the country.
We are, therefore, of the view that the various decisions taken
by NBWL that Asiatic lio~ should have a second home to save
it from extinction, due to catastrophes like epidemic, large
s forest fire etc, which could result in extinction, is justified. This
Court, sitting in the jurisdiction, is not justified in taking a
contrary view from that of NBWL.
HISTORICAL HABITAT - RE-INTRODUCTION
C 51. No specie can survive on the brink of extinction
indefinitely and the probabilities associated with a critically
endangered specie make their extinction a matter of time.
Convention biology is the science that studies bio-diversity and
the dynamics of extinction. Eco-system approach to protecting
D endangered species emphasises on recovery, and
complement and support eco-system based conservation
approach. Reintroduction of an animal or plant into the habitat
from where it has become extinct is also known as ex-situ
conservation. India has successfully achieved certain re-
E introduction programmes, for example, the Rhino from
Kaziranga, re-introduction of Gangetic gharial in the rivers of
Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan etc. Re-introduction of an organism
is the intentional movement of an organism into a part of its
native range from which it has disappeared or become
F extirpated in nistoric times as a result of human activities or
natural catastrophe.
52. Kuno, as already stated, was proved to be a historical
habitat of Asiatic Lions. After survey of the potential status for
re-introduction of Asiatic lion, a final report has been submitted
G by Wll, which was published on 31.1.1995 Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh) emerged as th~ most suitable
habitat for re-introduction of the Asiatic lion. The Council of
Ministers approved the project on 28.2.1996. Between 1996
and 2001, 24 villages with about 1547 families had been
H translocated from the sanctuary by the Madhya Pradesh Forest
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 801
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Department. Government of Madhya Pradesh had also A
demarcated 1280 sq. kms. Kuno Wildlife Division,
encompassing the Sironi, Agra and Morawan forest ranges
around the sanctuary. Government of India vide its order dated
21.1.1997 ordered diversion of 3720.9 hectares of forest land,
including 18 villages were protected under Section 2 of the B
Forest Conservation Act A 20-years Project envisaged by the
Government of India was also approved by NBWL in its meeting
held on 10.3.2004. The Government of Madhya Pradesh took
up a massive re-location of villages and giving them alternative
sites. A male over 18 years of age was considered to be a c
family and each family was given 2 hectares of cultivate land,
in addition to 500.sq. mtrs. Land was also given for house
construction. Financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-
in the form of housing material was also given. Government of
India has spent a sum of Rs.15 crores for the said purpose.
D
53. We also notice that all possible steps have been taken
by the State of Madhya Pradesh, MoEF and the Union of India
making Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary fit for re-introduction of Asiatic
lion, with the approval of NWLB.
E
PREY DENSITY:
54. Wll was requested to assess the availability of prey
density in the year 2005. With the assistance of various staff,
17 transects totalling 461 km were surveyed over an area of
280 sq. kms. The density of catchable wild prey (chital, F
sambar, nilgai, wild pig) by lions was 13 animals/sq. km. There
were about 2500 cattle, left behind by the translocated people
which were considered to be the buffer prey for lions to tide
over the likely problem of drought periodically killing wild
ungulates. Wll noticed that with the implementation of the G
recommendations such as the control of poaching, grassland
management, building rubble wall around the Division and
water augmentation, a substantial rise (ca. 20 animals/Sq. km)
in the wild prey base for lions by the end of 2007. A detailed
H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A report on the assessment of prey population was submitted by
Wll in July 2006.
55. State of Gujarat had raised serious objection with
regard to prey density at Kuno. Various studies have been
conducted with regard to prey density. Reports and studies
8
conducted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh revealed
that the prey density at Kuno has far exceeded the estimated
prey density as recommended by Prof. Chellam in his 1993
report. The data collected regarding prey density by Mr. Fiaz
C A. Khudsar and Mr. Raman in the year 2008 shows the
following picture:
Mr. F.A. Mr. F. A. Mr. Wll in
Khudsar Khudsar Raman, 2011
year 200~ year 2006 WPO in (Cheetah
D year task
2008 force
report
'
All prey density 17.35 24.6 49.477 N.A.
E excluding feral
cattle
All prey density - 63.97 67.406 85.91 ±
including feral 23
cattle
F
We notice that Mr. Khudsar collected his data regarding prey
base density April-May 2004 and May 2005, that report was
published in 2008. However, the census carried out by Mr.
Rehman (WPO) was in March 2008. Gens.us was carried out
G as per All India Tiger Census procedure. For the said purpose,
the officials and staff of Government of India was trained by the
scientists of Wll in 2008, from 19-21 January. The Staff/officials
of working plan was later trained for one week from 18-23
February, 2008 in Game Guard Training School, Bandhavgarh
H and then census was carried out from 2.3.2008 to 8.3.2008
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 803
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
under the supervision and guidance of Dr. Quarnar Qureshi, A
Scientist Wll. We, therefore, find that the census carried out by
Shri Raman (WPO) is latest in point of time. The actual
comparative statement between density estimation of Shri
Raman WPO, 2008 and Shri F.A. Khudsar is as follows:
B
Species Density Density Density Density
Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded
by Shri by Shri by Shri by Wll in
F.A. F.A. Raman 2001
Khudsar Khudsar WPO in (Cheetah
year 2004 year 2006 Year 2008 task force
c
report)
Ch ital 6.6 12.5 18.834 35.87
Sam bar 0.3 0.78 1.634 N.A. D
Nilgai 0.77 1.61 5.603 N.A.
Four 0.02 0.0 0.0 N.A.
horned
Antelope E
Chinkara 3.6 6.52 1.983 N.A.
Wild Pig 0.79 3.19 3.534 N.A.
Feral 0.0 39.37 17.929 N.A.
F
Cattle
In order to get latest figure of prey base, an exercise of
prey base estimation was done in Kuno in the month of June
2012 by the team of expert independent scientists and various
officers of M.P. In June 2012, Wll was requested to conduct a G
survey to assess the latest status of prey base in Kuna. An
exercise was carried out jointly by the independent members
i.e. scientists/experts from Wll, WWF India and the personnel
of Kuna Wildlife Division to determine the accurate prey base.
The following was the methodology taken up by them. H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
•
A "(ii) Prey base density estimation: The methodology of
exercise was - Distance sampling on systematic line
transect method as developed by Buckland et al., 2011.
Fixed line transects distributed across Kunc WLS, were
sampled. All the line transects were walked three times.
B All ungulates and other prey species observed along with
their group size were recorded. The total sampling effort
was 208.5 km and 144 man-days.
(iii} Analysis:- The density of prey species which include
Chital, Sambhar, Nilgai, Wildpig, Chinkara, Langur,
c Peafowl and Feral Cattle was estimated using the software
DISTANCE 6.0. The analysis of the collected data was
done by Dr. Jhala and researchers working under him.
{jv) Population Density:- As a result of exercise done for .
D estimation of prey-base, density estimates of Chital,
Sambhar, Nilgai, Wildpig, Chinkara, Lungur, Peafowl and
Feral Cattle were calculated. Population density of prey
species in Kunc WLS was found as follows:
Species Population Density/
• E Sq. km.±
Standard Error
Ch ital 51.59 ± 8.84
F Sambhar 3.59 ± 1.01
Nilgai 2.32 ± 0.59
Wild Pig 4.68 ± 1.54
Chinkara 0.99 ± 0.35
G
Langur 17.2 ± 4.6
Peafowl 6.44 ± 2.34
Feral Cattle 1.83 ± 0.77
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 805
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
State of Madhya Pradesh has also taken up the stand that the A
prey base in Kuno is more than the existing prey base in Gir.
A chart comparing the same as also been produced before us,
which is as follows:
2012 Scenario:- B
Species Av. Gir N.P. Kuno WLS
Wt.
(kg)
Density Biomass Density Biomass c
per sq. (kg) per sq. (kg)
Km. Km.
Ch ital 47 50.8 2387.60 51.59 2424.7
Sam bar 134 2.00 268.00 3.59 481.06 D
Nilgai 125 0.58 72.50 2.32 290
Four 21 0.42 8.82 - -
horned E
antelope
Chinkara 20 2.40 48.00 0.99 19.8
Wild Pig 32 0.00 0.00 4.68 149.76
F
Common. 09 0.00 0.00 17.2 154.8
Langur
Total 56.2 2785 80.37 3520.12
including
Langur G
Total 63.17 3365.32
excluding
langur &
feral cattle H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, maintained the stand
that, in 2012 scenario, the biomass per sq/km in Kuno Wildlife
Sanctuary' excluding feral cattle and langur (3365.32 kg per sq/
km) is more than the biomass in Gir PA (2785 kg per sq/km).
56. State of Gujarat filed an application on 2.7.2012 on the
B
basis of the above estimation of prey base and sought a
direction to the parties to take a fresh survey on prey base. Shri
Ravi Chellam in his written note on 8.7.2012 made some
remarks on prey-base stating that prey density estimation
seems to be inadequate in terms of design, data-collection,
C protocols, and analytical methods, when compared with the
interaationally accepted standards. Shri Chellam suggested that
prey studies have to be conducted at least twelve months
covering all seasons and habitat.
D 57. State of Gujarat has also raised various other
objections stating that the past track record would indicate that
State of Madhya Pradesh is not taking any effective steps to
control poaching which is also a threat if lions are translocated
to Kuno. To meet that contention, the State of Madhya Pradesh
E stated that the Tiger Authority of India in its report- Tiger Meets,
July 2011 - has assessed the performance of the State of
Madhya Pradesh as outstanding, which would indicate that they
had taken effective steps against poaching of animals at Kuno.
We notice that poaching of wild animals is of great concern
which calls for attention by all State Governments, so as to
F
protect the endangered species from extinction. It is a matter
which has to be dealt with effectively and poaches, if caught,
should be brought to justice.
Cheetah to Kuno
G
58. We notice that while the matter was being heard, a
decision has been made by MoEF to import African Cheetahs
from Namibia to India and to introduce the same at Kuno.
Amicus Curiae filed I.A. No. 3452 of 2012. This Court granted
H a stay on 8.5.2012 of the decision of MoEF to import the
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 807
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J]
Cheetahs from Namibia to India for introducing them to Kuno. A
Serious objections have been raised by the Amicus Curiae Shri
P.S. Narasimha against the introduction of foreign species at
Kuno. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that the decision to
introduce African Cheetahs into the same proposed habitat
chosen for re-introduction of Asiatic lion has not been either B
placed before the Standing Committee of NBWL, nor has there
been a consistent decision. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed
out that IUCN Guidelines on translocation clearly differentiated
between introduction and re-introduction. The guidelines
critically warned against the introduction of African or imported c
species which never existed in India. It is not a case of
international movement of organism into a part of its native
range. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed that NWAP 2002-2016,
which is a National Policy document, does not envisage re-
introduction of a foreign species to India. The Police only
mentio.ned re-introduction or finding an alternative home for D
species like Asiatic lion.
59. MoEF, in our view, has not conducted any detailed
study before passing the order of introducing foreign cheetah
to Kuno. Kuno is not a historical habitat for African cheetahs, E
no materials have been placed before us to establish that fact.
A detailed scientific study has to be done before introducing a
foreign species to India, which has not been done in the instant
case. NBWL, which is Statutory Board established for the
purpose under the Wildlife Protection Act was also not F
consulted.
60. We may indicate that our top priority is to protect
Asiatic lions, an endangered species and to provide a second
home. Various steps have been taken for the last few decades,
but nothing transpired so far. Crores of rupees have been spent G
by the Government of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh
for re-introduction of Asiatic lion to Kuno. At this stage, in our
view, the decision taken by MoEF for introduction of African
cheetaJ'ls first to Kuno and then Asiatic lion, is arbitrary an illegal
and clear violation of the statutory requirements provided under H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the Wildlife Protection Act. The order of MoEF to introduce
African Cheetahs into Kuna cannot stand in the eye of Law and
the same is quashed.
61. MoEF's decision for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from
B Gir to Kuna is that of utmost importance so as to preserve the
Asiatic lion, an endangered species which cannot be delayed.
Re-introduction of Asiatic lion, needless to say, should be in
accordance with the guidelines issued by IUCN and with the
active participation of experts in the field of re-introduction of
endangered species. MoEF is therefore directed to take urgent
C steps for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir forests to Kuna.
MoEF has to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of
senior officials of MoEF, Chief Wildlife Wardens of the States
of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. Technical experts should also
be the members of the Committee, which will include the
D Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of WWF. Dr.
Y.S. Jhala, senior scientist with Wildlife Institute of India, Dr.
Ravi Chellam, senior scientist, Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh, since all
of them had done lot of research in that area and have national
and international exposure. Any other expert can also be co-
E opted as the members of the Committee. Needless to say, the
number of lions to be re-introduced would depend upon the
density of prey base and other related factors, which the
Committee will assess.
F 62. I.A. is allowed as mentioned above. The order be
carried out in its letter and spirit and within a period of 6 months
from today. We record our deep appreciation for the assistance
rendered by all the senior counsel and learned amicus curiae
Shri P.S. Narasimha and also Dr. Ravi Chellam who was
G present in the Court throughout and made valuable suggestions
with regard to the various environmental and scientific issues.
63. We are also inclined to highlight the necessity of an
exclusive parliamentary legislation for the preservation and
protection of endangered species so as to carry out the
H
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT LAW, WWF-1 v. UNION 809
OF INDIA [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
recovery programmes before many of the species becom~ A
extinct and to give the following directions:
(a) NWAP (2002-2016) has already identified species like
the Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Dugong, the Manipur
Brow Antlered Deer, over and above Asiatic Lion and Wild B
Buffalo as endangered species and hence we are, therefore,
inclined to give a direction to the Government of India and the
MoEF to take urgent steps for the preservation of those
endangered species as well as to initiate recovery
programmes.
c
(b) The Government of India and the MoEF are directed
to identify, as already highlighted by NWAP, all endangered
species of flora and fauna, study their needs and survey their
environs and habitats to establish the current level of security
and the nature of threats. They should also conduct periodic D
reviews of flora and fauna species status, and correlate the
same with the IUCN Red Data List every three years.
(c) Courts and environmentalists should pay more attention
for implementing the recovery programmes and the same be E
carried out with imagination and commitment.
K.K.T. IAs allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Asiatic lion"Sign in to search