Legal Review and Analysis of In Re Corbett 2025 INSC 1325

In-Short 

Case: In Re: Corbett (2025 INSC 1325): Supreme Court mandates ecocentrism in wildlife tourism, directing ecological restoration of Corbett, prohibiting Tiger Safaris in core areas and corridors, and mandating Eco-Sensitive Zones and Silence Zones for all Tiger Reserves.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: In Re: Corbett (I.A. No. 20650 of 2023 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 - T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1325
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon'ble The Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Chandurkar
Date: November 17, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

This judgment interprets and applies a wide array of environmental and wildlife laws, reinforcing the legal framework for conservation.

• Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLP Act):
  Section 38-V: Defines the structure of Tiger Reserves, including 'core' and 'buffer' areas.

• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:
  Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) Notification dated 9th February 2011: Provides the framework for regulating activities around protected areas.

• Constitution of India:
  Article 21: Right to Life, encompassing the right to a healthy environment.
  Article 48A: Directive Principle of State Policy to protect and improve the environment.
  Article 51A(g): Fundamental Duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment.

• Other Key Frameworks:
  NTCA Guidelines (2016 & 2019): Guidelines for establishing and managing Tiger Safaris.
  Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
  International Convention: Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Jurisdiction: Civil Original Jurisdiction in a continuing Writ Petition (T.N. Godavarman case).

• Nature of Proceeding: Monitoring and implementation of the Supreme Court's own judgment dated March 6, 2024.

• Subject Matter: Consideration of the Report by an Expert Committee constituted to frame standards for Tiger Safaris and recommend measures for the ecological restoration of the Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) following incidents of illegal construction and tree felling.

• Background: The Court was addressing the aftermath of environmental damage in CTR and the need for a pan-India regulatory framework for Tiger Reserves and Tiger Safaris to balance conservation with regulated eco-tourism.

4. Core Legal Principle and Judicial Analysis

The Core Issue: How to reconcile the objectives of wildlife conservation, specifically of the tiger as an apex species, with the pressures of tourism and development, while ensuring the restoration of already degraded ecosystems within a robust and enforceable legal framework.

In-Depth Analysis of the Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a landmark articulation of "ecocentrism" – a philosophy that places the ecosystem at the center of legal and policy decisions, rather than human-centric (anthropocentric) interests. The Court’s reasoning is built on constitutional mandates, international principles, and a detailed acceptance of an Expert Committee's recommendations.

A. The Primacy of Ecological Restoration and the "Restitutive Approach"

The Court began its analysis by reaffirming the principle of restitution for environmental damage. It drew upon its earlier precedent in T.N. Godavarman (2025) 2 SCC 641, international law (the Convention on Biological Diversity), and constitutional mandates (Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g)) to hold that the primary response to ecological degradation must be its restoration to the original state.

• Application to Corbett: For the specific damage in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, the Court directed the State of Uttarakhand to undertake a comprehensive restoration plan under the supervision of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). This includes demolishing unauthorized structures, restoring the topography, and undertaking plantation using only native species. While the Committee had quantified the cost of damage at approximately Rs. 29.8 Crore, the Supreme Court, noting the ongoing CBI prosecution, deferred a final cost recovery order, opting instead for a process where errant officers would be held proportionately liable after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

B. Regulating Tiger Safaris: A Shift from Anthropocentrism to Ecocentrism

A significant part of the judgment is dedicated to creating a strict regulatory regime for Tiger Safaris. The Court accepted the Committee's recommendations, which were framed based on the principles laid down in the March 2024 judgment:

• Location is Paramount: Tiger Safaris are prohibited in core/critical tiger habitats. They can only be established on 'non-forest land' or 'degraded forest land' within the buffer area, provided the location is not part of a tiger corridor.

• Purpose and Sourcing of Animals: The very purpose of a safari is redefined. It is not for entertainment but for conservation and care. The Court mandated that safaris can only house "rescued, conflict, injured, or orphaned" tigers from the same tiger reserve or landscape. This directly promotes in-situ conservation and prevents the import of tigers from zoos.

• Integration with Rescue Centres: Every Tiger Safari must be associated with a fully functional rescue and rehabilitation centre to provide veterinary care.

• Management and Revenue: Management must remain with the Forest Department, and all earnings must be ploughed back into the Tiger Conservation Foundation for conservation work.

C. Creating an Impenetrable Regulatory Shield for Tiger Reserves

The Supreme Court issued sweeping directives to fortify the protection of Tiger Reserves across India:

• Mandatory Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ): In a crucial direction, the Court mandated that all State Governments must notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves within one year. The minimum area of this ESZ must encompass the buffer and fringe areas of the reserve. This brings the entire zone of influence of a tiger reserve under the protective regime of the ESZ Notification, 2011, which prohibits activities like commercial mining within 1 km.

• Comprehensive Activity Regulation: The Court provided an exhaustive list of prohibited and regulated activities within the buffer and fringe areas, banning commercial mining, polluting industries, major hydroelectric projects, and the introduction of exotic species.

• Silence Zones: The entire area of every Tiger Reserve and its ESZ must be notified as a "Silence Zone" under the Noise Pollution Rules within three months to minimize disturbance to wildlife.

• Tiger Conservation Plans (TCP): All states are directed to prepare and implement TCPs within three to six months, making financial assistance from the central government conditional upon their approval.

D. Strengthening the Guardians of the Forest: Human Resource and Infrastructure

Recognizing that laws are only as effective as their implementers, the Court dedicated a substantial part of its order to empowering forest staff:

• Filling Vacancies and Creating Cadres: The MoEF&CC and CEC were directed to set up a Special Cell to review staffing and ensure all vacancies are filled. The Court also called for the creation of separate cadres for veterinarians, wildlife biologists, and sociologists.

• Incentives and Morale Boost: The Court directed states to consider providing government accommodation in places of choice for staff posted in remote areas, instituting medals for distinguished service, enhancing allowances to be at par with paramilitary forces, and providing ex-gratia and insurance covers on par with such forces for death or disability in the line of duty.

• Arms and Enforcement: In a significant move, the Court recommended the phased provision of firearms to frontline forest staff and the creation of specialized Forest Battalions.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions

The Supreme Court, in exercise of its wide powers under Article 32 of the Constitution, issued a comprehensive set of binding directions. The key outcomes are:

"The State of Uttarakhand... is directed to: Submit a plan for the restoration of the Corbett Tiger Reserve... within a period of 2 months; [and] Begin all clearing/demolition of unauthorised construction... before the lapse of 3 months..."

"All State Governments are hereby directed to notify ESZs around all Tiger Reserves, including buffer and fringe areas, no later than 1 year from the date of this judgment."

"The entire area of the Tiger Reserve (including ESZs of the Protected Areas) shall be notified as 'Silence Zone' under the Noise Pollution... Rules, 2000, within 3 months..."

"All States are hereby directed to... notify the buffer and core areas of the Tiger Reserves within 6 months... [and] prepare a Tiger Conservation Plan within a period of 3 months..."

The Court also directed the formulation of a policy framework for funding, model guidelines for human-wildlife conflict management, and regulations for religious tourism within tiger reserves, all to be implemented within strict timelines.

6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment

1. According to the Supreme Court's judgment in In Re: Corbett (2025 INSC 1325), where can a new Tiger Safari be established?
a) Only in the core area of a Tiger Reserve to ensure tiger visibility.
b) On any non-forest land in the buffer zone, regardless of its ecological value.
c) On non-forest or degraded forest land in the buffer zone, provided it is not a tiger corridor.
d) Only in areas adjacent to existing tourist resorts to boost revenue.

2. The Supreme Court directed that the entire area of a Tiger Reserve and its Eco-Sensitive Zone must be notified as what, under the Noise Pollution Rules?
a) A Commercial Free Zone
b) A Silence Zone
c) A Low-Noise Area
d) A Regulated Tourism Zone