Eco-Sensitive Zone - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines for Tiger Safaris and Forest Protection

4Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines for Tiger Safaris and Forest Protection

The Supreme Court upheld and expanded upon its March 2024 directions concerning tiger conservation. It mandated that Tiger Safaris may only be established on non-forest or degraded land within buffer zones, provided they are not part of tiger corridors and are integrated with rescue centres. The Court accepted the Expert Committee's recommendations, directing the notification of Eco-Sensitive Zones for all Tiger Reserves and imposing strict regulations on activities within buffer and fringe areas to prioritize an ecocentric approach. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an application by Shri Gaurav Kumar Bansal concerning illegal constructions and felling of trees within the Corbett Tiger Reserve, particularly for establishing a Tiger Safari at Pakhrau. Following its detailed jud...

Supreme Court Orders End to ‘Forced Labour’ in Matheran, Directs Rehabilitation Scheme

The Supreme Court prohibited hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran, declaring the practice a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution as it constitutes forced labour and offends human dignity. It directed the state to rehabilitate pullers by providing e-rickshaws through a welfare scheme, balancing ecological concerns with the constitutional mandate of social and economic justice. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the eco-sensitive hill station of Matheran in Maharashtra, renowned as a pedestrian-only zone. The primary issues involved whether paver blocks could be laid on the main road to prevent soil erosion and if hand-pulled rickshaws, a long-standing mode of transport, could be replaced with battery-operated e-rickshaws. The state government and the Matheran Municipal Council...

Supreme Court Backs Government’s 2025 Notification, Says No Special Treatment for Educational & Industrial Buildings

The Supreme Court upheld the 2025 EIA Notification, ruling that General Conditions under the 2006 Notification never applied to building and township projects. It affirmed that State-level expert bodies (SEIAA) are competent to appraise such projects. However, the exemption for industrial and educational constructions was struck down as arbitrary. Facts Of The Case: The writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of the notification dated 29th January 2025 and an Office Memorandum dated 30th January 2025, both issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The petitioner, an environmental organization, argued that the new notification fundamentally diluted the environmental regulatory regime established by the original 2006 EIA Notification. The ...