Decision came after a petition challenged an Uttarakhand govt proposal for tiger safari, which would involve keeping animals in cages within the national park.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday told the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) that its plan to have a tiger safari on the lines of a zoo within a national park, as envisaged at the Jim Corbett national park, cannot be permitted as the approach has to be “animal-centric” and not “tourism-centric”.
A bench headed by justice BR Gavai said, “We will not permit animals in the zoo to be kept (in cages) at national parks,” while commenting on the 2019 NTCA guidelines to establish tiger safari in buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves. The guidelines provided for establishing tiger safari in buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves to reduce pressure of tourism from core or critical tiger habitat.
The issue came to Court after a petition filed by environment activist and lawyer Gaurav Bansal challenged the Uttarakhand government’s proposal to have a tiger safari, meant as a specialised zoo with caged animals, at the Jim Corbett national park. The Court appointed advocate K Parmeshwar as amicus curiae to understand if such a facility could be introduced within a national park or sanctuary.
The bench, also comprising justices PK Mishra and Sandeep Mehta said, “The purpose should not be entertainment. Your (NTCA) approach has to be animal-centric and not tourism-centric,” as it questioned NTCA for changing the regime in 2019 while its earlier guidelines of 2016 did not provide for safari. The Court will continue hearing the matter on Friday.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the NTCA told the Court that the idea of tourism is not opposed to conservation as there are tiger safaris located at buffer or fringe areas of national parks in the country. She pointed out that the 2019 guidelines sought to create an “exalted zoo” as there are 20 such zoos existing in the country, citing the example of Bannerghatta biological park in Bengaluru.
The bench remarked, “If you want to have a zoo, have it in the Lutyens Zone in the Capital but why have it in Corbett national park. Don’t have zoos in these locations. Such facilities may fall in the tiger or elephant corridor, hindering free movement of animals in the wild. It may even cause diseases to other animals.”
The Court said, “Your 2019 guideline has to go. How do you equate zoo with safari.” The judges shared experiences during their visits to some of the sanctuaries and national parks where they were told that tigers in the wild rub their nails against trees considered to have antibiotic value. “Animals in the zoo won’t know that,” the judges commented, while further observing how wild animals collect salt from rocks.
“You can’t create a facility in a sanctuary for animals born in a zoo. We appreciate if you want to have a relief and rehabilitation centre within the national park for keeping injured or old wild animals and later releasing them into wild,” the bench said.
