Ecological Damage - The Legal Chamber

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...

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that a valid District Survey Report (DSR), prepared under the EIA Notification, 2016, is mandatory for granting environmental clearance for sand mining. The Supreme Court held that a DSR is legally untenable without a scientific replenishment study, as it forms the foundational basis for determining sustainable extraction limits and ensuring ecological balance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the grant of an Environmental Clearance (EC) for sand mining in three blocks on the Shaliganga Nallah in Jammu & Kashmir. The project proponent, contracted by the National Highway Authority of India for a Srinagar ring road, applied for the EC. Initially, the J&K Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) rejected the proposal in January 2022, citing ...

Tag: Ecological Damage

Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines for Tiger Safaris and Forest Protection

Explained: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Sand Mining and Environmental Clearance