Legal Review and Analysis of In Re Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary 2025 INSC 1311

In Short

Case: Saranda Conservation vs. Mining: SC holds Jharkhand State in Contempt for repeatedly delaying the notification of Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary due to conflicting mining interests, emphasizing the constitutional duty to conserve the pristine Sal forest and affirming that existing laws (WP Act & FRA) fully protect tribal rights.

1. Heading of the Judgment

IN RE: SARANDA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY  (In the matter of: Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others)

Citation: 2025 INSC 1311

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment refers to and relies upon the following principal statutes and constitutional provisions:

• Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WP Act): The core legal framework for declaring Sanctuaries and Conservation Reserves.
  Section 18: For notification of intent to declare a Sanctuary.
  Section 24(2)(c): Pertains to the Collector's power to allow the continuance of any right of a person in or over land within the limits of the Sanctuary, in consultation with the Chief Wild Life Warden.
  Section 26-A: For the final declaration of an area as a Sanctuary.

• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA): Provisions, particularly Section 3 read with Section 4(1), were cited to affirm the protection of the rights of tribals and forest dwellers even after the declaration of a Wildlife Sanctuary.

• The Indian Forest Act, 1927 and The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

• Constitution of India:
  Article 48A: The State's mandate to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife.
  Article 51A(g): The fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment and to have compassion for living creatures.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Court: The Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction.

• Coram: B.R. GAVAI, CJI  (Coram for the order of September 17, 2025).

• Primary Issue: Applications for Directions (I.A. No. 153500 of 2024 and connected I.A.s) seeking to direct the State of Jharkhand to declare the Saranda Game Sanctuary area as a Wildlife Sanctuary under the WP Act.

• Underlying Forest Area: Saranda Forest Division in the State of Jharkhand, noted as one of the most pristine Sal forests in the world, a biodiversity hotspot, and home to endangered species.

4. Core Principle: State's Obligation to Prioritise Conservation

The Issue Before the Supreme Court

The issue centered on the persistent failure and delay by the State of Jharkhand (GoJ) to declare the Saranda Forest area as a Wildlife Sanctuary, despite a 1968 notification declaring it a Game Sanctuary (31,468.25 hectares). The National Green Tribunal (NGT) had previously directed the State to consider the declaration in 2022. An Intervention Application (I.A.) was filed in the Supreme Court's ongoing forest matter (T.N. Godavarman) to compel the State to act.

Analysis of the State's Conduct (Dilly-Dallying Tactics)

The Supreme Court expressed a serious concern that the State was "indulging in not only dilly dallying tactics, but is also attempting to take the Court for a ride".

1. Change of Stand: The State initially proposed a much larger area for protection (57,519.41 hectares for the Sanctuary and 13,603.806 hectares for a Conservation Reserve).

2. Obstruction after Expert Review: Following a clear, positive recommendation from the Court-requested report by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) on May 30, 2025 , the State abruptly changed its position.

3. Mining Interests over Conservation: The Court identified the root cause of the delay: the Chief Secretary, on May 13, 2025, constituted a Committee for review because the Geological Survey of India had identified "Prospecting Areas for future mining" that fell within the proposed Sanctuary. This demonstrated a clear prioritization of commercial mining interests over the constitutional duty to conserve the pristine forest.

Upholding Conservation and Tribal Rights

The Court rejected the State's implied argument that declaring the Sanctuary would halt mining and prejudice the rights of the indigenous Adivasi communities, as the Saranda region is under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

1. Ecological Significance: The Court emphasized the area's undisputed status as a pristine forest, a biodiversity hotspot for species like the critically endangered Sal Forest Tortoise and the Asiatic Elephant, and a vital wildlife corridor. The WII confirmed its "immense ecological, biodiversity... and geomorphological significance".

2. Protection for Tribals: The Court found the State's claim regarding the loss of rights for tribals and forest dwellers to be a "bogey". It explicitly stated that the provisions of the WP Act (Section 24(2)(c)) and the FRA are robust enough to "amply protect the rights of the tribals and forest dwellers" and allow for the continuance of permissible activities and vital public infrastructure, even after the area is declared a Wildlife Sanctuary.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court Directions

The Supreme Court passed a stern order on September 17, 2025:

• Finding of Contempt: The Court held the State Government of Jharkhand to be in "clear Contempt" of its previous order dated April 29, 2025, by failing to complete the formalities (like State Wildlife Board and Cabinet approval) within the stipulated two-month period.

• Mandamus Warning: The Court clarified that if the State continued to delay, it would be compelled to issue a Mandamus commanding compliance with the State's own commitments made in the affidavit of April 29, 2025.

• Personal Presence: The Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand was directed to remain personally present before the Court on October 08, 2025, to show cause why action for contempt should not be taken against him. The personal presence would be exempted only if the State complied with the Court's previous order in the interim.

• No Impediment to Original Area: The Court specifically observed that there was "no impediment" to the State immediately notifying the original area of 31,468.25 hectares as a Wildlife Sanctuary.

6.  (MCQs) Based On The Judgement

MCQ 1: What was the original area (in hectares) of the Saranda Game Sanctuary declared in 1968, which the Supreme Court noted had "no impediment" to be notified as a Wildlife Sanctuary?

• A) 57,519.41 hectares

• B) 13,603.806 hectares

• C) 31,468.25 hectares

• D) 4.31 hectares

MCQ 2: Which key Central legislation, alongside the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, did the Supreme Court explicitly refer to as having provisions that "amply protect the rights of the tribals and forest dwellers" even after the declaration of a Wildlife Sanctuary?

• A) Indian Forest Act, 1927

• B) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

• C) Forest Rights Act, 2006

• D) The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013