In its ruling in March, the Supreme Court brought to light the unholy nexus of politicians, forest officials, and local contractors responsible for the felling of 6,000 trees in the Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand. This state of affairs underlines one fact clearly: despite conservation goals receiving priority through policies and laws including the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Project Tiger, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the state’s main interest remains increasing revenue. The illegal destruction of trees in Jim Corbett can be seen in contravention of the Supreme Court judgment in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which said that “economic growth cannot be achieved at the cost of environmental destruction and people’s right to healthy environment.”
The judgment
National and State forest authorities have leaned on ecotourism to simultaneously attain conservation goals, enhance revenue, and improve the livelihoods of local people. In its recent judgment, instead of treating eco-tourism as a panacea for conservation and revenue generation, the Supreme Court said that the approach must be of eco-centrism and not anthropocentrism. The court directed the banning of tiger safaris in core areas and the constitution of a committee to explore the feasibility of permitting tiger safaris in peripheral areas in not just Jim Corbett, but across India. It also disagreed with the 2019 guidelines of the National Tiger Conservation Authority permitting a tiger safari on the lines of a zoo in a national park. The court stressed that tigers should be sourced from the same landscape as where the safari is being conducted and not outside the tiger reserve.
