Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand Govt Over Tree Felling in Jim Corbett National Park

Context: 

This editorial is based on the news “A slippery slope: On the Jim Corbett National Park case, tourism and conservation” which was published in the Hindu. The Supreme Court of India strongly criticised  the Uttarakhand government for the felling of about 6,000 trees in the Jim Corbett National Park.

Supreme Court Ruling On Jim Corbett National Park Case: Key Highlights

• Tigers are Indicator Species: In the judgement by a three-judge Bench, Justice B.R. Gavai emphasises the importance of protecting tigers, considering them as  indicators of a healthy ecosystem, and warns against illegal construction and tree felling.
  • Collusion between forest officials and politicians in Uttarakhand: The Court identifies a collusion to expand a tiger safari within the park, condemning it as a violation of conservation practices.
  • Question of allowing Safaris: The Court’s judgement has consequences for the management of wildlife parks, particularly on the question of whether ‘tiger safaris’ in the buffer and fringe zones of wildlife parks gel well with conservation measures. 
  • Noise Pollution nearby park: The Court draws attention to resorts near the park that disrupt wildlife with loud music, posing a threat to animals.

• Conservation and Protection of Wild Animals

• • Expert bodies: Both the Central Zoo Authority and the National Tiger Conservation Authority are expert bodies affiliated to the Union Environment Ministry, and tasked with the conservation and protection of wild animals.
  • They do not oppose tiger safaris but emphasise adherence to established guidelines.
  • These organisations, in principle, have no objection to the existence of tiger safaris, provided these are conducted within the ambit of an array of guidelines. 

• Underlying Rationale for Wildlife Safaris

  • Maintain the Core Zones: Wildlife safaris in a designated spot diverts attention away from the core zones of the forest and promote its inviolate nature.
  • Raise public awareness about conservation.
  • Source of employment opportunities for locals.
  • Example-The recent translocation of cheetahs from Africa to Kuno National Park, Madhya Pradesh, also aims to revive the cat’s presence and promote tourism. 
  • However, safaris should prioritise eco-tourism and not commercial tourism. 
  • There are concerns of political capture, as the proceedings in Jim Corbett National Park demonstrate. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has recommended that the Centre evolve guidelines on the conduct of safaris and the government would do well to deliver on this at the earliest and be extremely circumspect on its messaging regarding tourism and conservation.

DOWNLOAD PDF