Tree Felling - 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...

Judicial Propriety Upheld: Supreme Court Says Validity of Sanction Must Be Challenged Only Before It

The Supreme Court ruled that when a sanction order is issued pursuant to its ongoing monitoring of proceedings, its validity can only be challenged before the Supreme Court itself. No other court, including a High Court, is entitled to entertain such a challenge or grant a stay on that sanction while the matter remains pending before the apex court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the Supreme Court's suo moto action concerning illegal construction and rampant tree felling within the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The investigation, initially directed by the Uttarakhand High Court and later monitored by the Supreme Court, was conducted by the CBI. The CBI filed a final report, leading to the requirement of prosecution sanction against involved officers. While the State of ...

Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi Ridge : DDA Must Pay for Environmental Damage in Delhi Ridge Case

The Supreme Court held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in contempt for wilfully disobeying its 1996 order prohibiting tree felling in the Delhi Ridge and for concealing this action from the court. The Court emphasized that such conduct obstructs the administration of justice and undermines the Rule of Law, necessitating remedial measures to purge the contempt. Facts Of The Case: This contempt petition before the Supreme Court of India stems from the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) alleged wilful disobedience of the Court's 1996 order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which mandated the preservation of the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge. The DDA sought approval for constructing approach roads to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), entailin...