Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. No. 100

In WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 337 OF 1995

Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I .. Applicants Versus

Union of India & Others .. Respondents

WITH

IA No.3452 in WP(C) No.202 of 1995

J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

Application for Intervention is allowed.

1. We  have  been  called  upon  to  decide  the  necessity  of  a  

second  home  for  Asiatic  Lion  (Panthera  leo  persica),  an

Page 2

2

endangered species, for its long term survival and to protect the  

species from extinction as issue rooted on eco-centrism, which  

supports the protection of all wildlife forms, not just those which  

are  of  instrumental  value  to  humans  but  those  which  have  

intrinsic worth.

FACTS:

2. The Wildlife Institute of India (for short ‘WII’), an autonomous  

institution  under  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests  (for  

short ‘MoEF’), Government of India, through its wildlife Biologists  

had done considerable research at the Gir Forest in the State of  

Gujarat since 1986.  All those studies were geared to provide data  

which would help for the better management of the Gir forest and  

enhance the prospects for the long term conservation of lions at  

Gir,  a  single  habitat  of  Asiatic  lion  in  the  world.    The  data  

collected by the Wildlife Biologists highlighted the necessity of a  

second natural habitat for its long term conservation.  Few of the  

scientists had identified the Asiatic lions as a prime candidate for  

a  re-introduction  project  to  ensure  its  long term survival.    In

Page 3

3

October 1993, a Population and Habitat Analysis Workshop was  

held at Baroda, Gujarat.  Various issues came for consideration in  

that meeting and the necessity of a second home for Asiatic lions  

was one of the issues deliberated upon in that meeting. Three  

alternative sites for re-introduction of Asiatic lions were suggested  

for an intensive survey, the details of which are given below:

1. Darrah-Jawaharsagar Wildlife Sanctuary (Rajasthan)

2. Sitamata Wildlife  Sanctuary (Rajasthan)

3. Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh)

3. The  Research  Advisory  Committee  of  WII  recognized  the  

need for  a  prior  survey  to  assess  the  potential  of  those sites.  

Accordingly, a field survey was conducted.  Surveys of the three  

sites were made during winter as well as summer, to assess water  

availability during the summer and also to ascertain the changes  

in  human  impact  on  the  habitat  during  the  seasons.   The  

surveyors concentrated on ascertaining the extent of forest area  

in  and  adjoining  the  chosen  protected  areas  with  the  aim  of  

establishing  the  contiguity  of  the  forested  habitat.    Attempts  

were  also  made  to  establish  the  relative  abundance  of  wild

Page 4

4

ungulate prey in the three sites based on direct sightings as well  

as on indirect evidence.   An assessment of the impact on the  

people and their livestock on habitat quality in all three sites was  

also made.  Of the three sites surveyed, Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary  

(for short ‘Kuno’) was found to be the most suitable site for re-

introduction in establishing a free ranging population of Asiatic  

lions.    A  draft  report  to  that  effect  was prepared by eminent  

Scientists  like  Ravi  Chellam,  Justus  Joshwa,  Christy  A.  Williams  

and A. J. T. Johnsingh on behalf of WII.   The report revealed that  

the  Kuno  was  a  historical  distribution  range  of  Asiatic  lions.  

Report also highlighted the necessity of a long term commitment  

of  resources,  personnel,  the  necessity  of  a  comprehensive  

rehabilitation package, adequate staff and facilities.    Committee  

did not  consider  the presence of  tigers in  Kuno to be a major  

limiting  factor,  especially  since  the  tigers  occur  in  such  low  

numbers  and  density.    Since  lions  live  in  stable  social  units,  

report  highlighted  that  it  is  important  to  take  lions  for  the  

translocation  also  from  a  single  pride.    Further,  it  was  also  

pointed  out  that  genetic  consideration  would  not  be  a  major  

factor,  provided fresh  male  lions  are  moved  from Gir  to  Kuno

Page 5

5

every  three  to  five  years  and  the  resident  males  in  Kuno  

selectively captured for Zoos.    

4. State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  then  undertook  a  massive  

rehabilitation package for the villagers settled in and near Kuno  

so as to push forward the scheme of relocation of Asiatic lions in  

Kuno.  It  was  noticed  that  about  1545  families  of  24  revenue  

villages were living inside Kuno and they had to be rehabilitated  

outside the sanctuary.  Since suitable and sufficient revenue land  

was not available in adjoining areas, it was decided to relocate  

those villages on degraded protected forests.  Since proposed site  

of resettlement fell in various blocks of protected forest, the use  

as a rehabilitation purpose involved a legal obligation to obtain  

prior  sanction  from  MoEF  under  Section  2  of  the  Forest  

(Conservation) Act, 1980.

5. The  Secretary  (Forests),  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  

therefore,  sent  a  letter  dated 24.7.1996 to  MoEF  seeking  final  

approval of the Central Government in accordance with the Forest

Page 6

6

(Conservation) Act, 1980.   MoEF, after examining the request of  

the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  conveyed  its  approval  under  

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of  

3720.9  hectare  of  forest  land  for  rehabilitation  of  18  villages  

located  inside  the  Kuno,  subject  to  fulfillment  of  certain  

conditions.  Out of 3720.9 hectare of the 13-forest compartments,  

3395.9  hectare  forest  area  of  12  compartments  was  finally  

approved  by  the  Government  of  India  for  de-notification.  

Compartment  No.  P-442 of  Umarikaia forest  block was left  out  

from the original  proposal by Government of India letter  dated  

1.2.2000 and hence, the released area in first phase had been de-

notified  after  due  permission  from  the  Government  of  India.  

Forest area of 1263.9 hectare released in the second phase could  

not be de-notified for want of permission from the Government of  

India.   The  Government  of  India  constituted  a  Monitoring  

Committee for  the effective implementation of  the Asiatic  Lion  

Reintroduction  Project  at  Kuno  which  met  on  10.3.2004.   The  

Survey report  of  WII  was discussed in  the meeting and it  was  

noticed that Kuno Paipur Sanctuary of M.P. was identified as the

Page 7

7

project site/and a 20 year project was conceived in three phases  

as below:

a.Phase  I  (1995-2000  A.D.)  Village  relocation  and  habitat  development.

b.Phase  II  (2000-2005)  Fencing  at  the  side,  translocation,  research and monitoring.

c.Phase III (2005-2015) Eco-development.

It was pointed out in the meeting that, currently, the project was  

in  Phase  II  and 18  villages  had been rehabilitated  from Kuno.  

Further, in the meeting, the Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat had,  

however, opined that there was no commitment on the part of the  

State of Gujarat for providing lions and the State Government had  

not agreed for the same.  Based on the discussion, the Chairman  

summed  up  the  consensus  which  emerged  out  of  the  

deliberations as follows:

1. A letter from MOS, MoEF should be sent to the Chief Minister of  Gujarat, highlighting the project justification with a request to  provide lions for translocation to Kuno Palpur Sanctuary.

Page 8

8

2. State  of  Gujarat  should  be  provided  with  a  set  of  project  documents.

3. The Chief Wildlife Warden, MP should prepare a road map with  a final detail for translocation of lions from Gir to Kuno.

4. An assessment of prey base in Kuno should be done by WII.

5. No further expenditure should be incurred with a focus on lion;  however,  funding  support  for  habitat  improvement/welfare  initiatives for other wild animals can continue.

6. The scheme for rehabilitation of villagers was prepared by  

the centrally sponsored “Beneficiary-oriented Scheme for Tribal  

Development”.  It was stated in the scheme that a total of more  

than  Rs.1545  lacs  would  be  required  for  the  satisfactory  re-

location of 1545 families of 24 villages out of the limit of Kuno.  

Out of 1545 lacs, 1061 lacs had been spent on relocation process.  

Balance 484 lacs were required to be released for the remaining  

rehabilitation works.  The Chief Wildlife Warden, M.P. had certified  

the said expenditure.

Page 9

9

7. WII,  in the meantime, had made a detailed assessment of  

prey population for lion re-location in Kuno.  It was noticed that  

since re-location of villages from Kuno was complete, Government  

of M.P. was keen to assess the prey base in the sanctuary so as to  

plan obtaining lions from Gujarat for re-introduction as early as  

possible.   For the said purpose, the task of evaluating for wild  

prey base was entrusted to WII.   Consequently, the faculty from  

WII, with the help of 34 forest staff, had undertaken the study of  

ungulates in Kuno under the guidance of Dr. Raghu Chundawat  

and carried out the prey assessment exercise from 2.1.2005 to  

8.1.2005 and 8.2.2005 to 13.2.2005.   A report was filed in June  

2006  (July  2006).   The  Minister  of  MoEF  sent  a  letter  dated  

20.7.2006 to the Chief Minister of Gujarat for translocation of two  

numbers of lions to Kuno.   The Chief Minister of Gujarat vide his  

letter dated 30.4.2006 replied stating that the matter had been  

placed before the concerned department for further views.  But  

nothing had been transpired in spite of the fact that crores and  

crores of rupees were spent by the Government of India for re-

location  of  villages,  de-notifying  the  reserve  forest  and  so  on  

which led to the filing of this public interest litigation seeking a

Page 10

10

direction  to  the  respondents  to  implement  the  re-location  

programme  as  recommended  by  WII,  and  approved  by  the  

Government of India.    

8. The  Minister  for  Tribal  Welfare,  Forests  and  Environment,  

Government of Gujarat vide his D.O. letter dated 18.8.2007 had  

indicated that it  was not possible for  the State Government to  

agree to the proposal for creation of a second home at Kuno in  

Madhya Pradesh for Asiatic Lions.   When the matter came up for  

consideration  before  this  Court  on  30.11.2007  and  this  Court  

passed the following order:

“There was a proposal for translocation of some of  the  Asiatic  Lions  found in  the Gir  National  Park to  a  forest  in  Madhya Pradesh.   The State of  Gujarat  has  raised certain objections.  The State of Madhya Pradesh  wants to file its response……  The proposal is directed  to  be  submitted  to  the  National  Board  for  Wildlife.  NBWL may consider the objections of State of Gujarat  and  response  of  Madhya  Pradesh  and  submit  is  recommendation in this court in four months.”

9.  NBWL then convened a meeting on 18.2.2008 under the  

Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister of State for Forests and Wildlife.

Page 11

11

The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat informed the Board about the  

various  steps  taken  by  the  State  Government  for  providing  

protection to Lions and their habitat and submitted as follows:

a) That Kuno Palpur has a population of 6 to 8 tigers and co-

existence of large cats of almost equal size was unlikely.

b) That Lions world over are known to prefer grasslands in sub-

topical  to  near  sub-tropical  climates  with  normal  

temperature during hot period below 42 degree C. (approx)  

while Kuno is known to have hot climate during summer with  

temperature exceeding 45 degree C. for a number of days.

c) The prey base at Kuno is also not adequate enough for the  

lions.

d) Lions are increasing in number and geographical distribution  

in vicinity of Gir in Amreli & Bhavnagar districts.  This is a  

natural  increase  in  home  range  of  lions,  which  is  well  

received by local population.  Besides, Gir National Park and  

Gir-Paniya-Mithiyal  Sanctuary  and  Devalia  Interpretation  

Park,  lions  have  made  home  in  Girnar,  grasslands  of  

Savarkundla,  Palitana and Mahuva hills  and in  the coastal

Page 12

12

region of Jafrabad and Rajula in Amreli districts, Mahuva and  

Palitana talukas of Bhavnagar district.

e) The Barda Sanctuary area is being effectively prepared as  

home for lion with vegetation having improved while spotted  

deer are introduced.

f) The natural  expansion  of  home range  being  the  effective  

way of establishing natural Meta population that infrequently  

interact among populations located at different places in Gir  

region.  Thus effectively isolated populations which may still  

received  genetic  inputs  from  the  base  populations  are  

establishing, providing efficient method of conservation.

g) During  the  year  2007-2008,  Government  of  Gujarat  has  

launched a special programme for conservation of lion with  

the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Gujarat announcing a five year  

action  plan  package  of  Rs.40  crore  for  lion  conservation  

which  includes  increase  in  protection  force,  habitat  

management,  raising  awareness  to  enlist  people’s  

participation etc.

Page 13

13

10. The  Chairman,  NBWL  then  sought  the  opinion  of  the  

Government of Madhya Pradesh on the points raised by the Chief  

Wildlife Warden, Gujarat.   

11. The Additional PCCF (WL), Government of Madhya Pradesh  

informed that the Kuno was waiting for the release of lions from  

Gujarat and that the Madhya Pradesh Government had taken all  

the necessary measures to make Kuno the ideal second home for  

the lions.   Further, it was pointed out that the State had already  

relocated 24 villages from the sanctuary for  the said  purpose.  

Further, it was pointed out that Kuno was suggested as a second  

home for lions after due scientific studies conducted by WII and  

the  Kuno  had  posed  no  threat  to  the  conservation  of  lions.  

Further, it was also pointed out that the prey base was in plenty  

in Kuno and he requested that the lions be translocated to Kuno  

at the earliest.

12. Dr. Asad Rehmani, Director, Bombay Natural History Society  

and member of the Standing Committee pointed out that sporadic

Page 14

14

presence  of  tiger  in  Kuno  was  in  no  case  detrimental  to  re-

introduction of lions.  Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda, member of the  

Standing Committee had also emphasized the fact that there was  

a need to create a second home for lions.   Dr. Chavda cited an  

example of the death of large number of lions in the Serengeti  

National  Park  at  Tanzania  and  other  areas  in  Africa  due  to  

epidemics.  Dr. Chavda cautioned, it could happen at Gir as well.  

Rest of the members of the Standing Committee also supported  

the decision for translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno. The  

Standing Committee of NBWL recorded that it was unanimously  

recommended for translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno.

13. The  State  of  Gujarat  filed  a  detailed  affidavit  before  this  

Court  on  4.4.2009  stating  that  the  State  had  objected  to  the  

translocation  of  lions  and  that  the  decision  of  the  Standing  

Committee was not unanimous.   Further, it was also pointed out  

that there was no sufficient prey base at Kuno so as to receive  

lions.  

Page 15

15

14. This Court, after perusing the affidavit filed by the States of  

Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh as well as MoEF, again passed an order  

dated  22.4.2009  directing  NBWL  to  have  a  fresh  look  on  the  

subject and file a report.  It was also ordered that NBWL should  

hear both the States, if necessary before filing the report.   The  

additional affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat was also placed  

for consideration before NBWL in its meeting held on 17.7.2009.  

In  that  meeting,  the  Chief  Wildlife  Warden  and  the  Principal  

Secretary (Forests) were present on behalf of the State of Gujarat.  

After detailed discussion, the Standing Committee of NBWL had  

unanimously decided to have an in-house technical discussion on  

the subject before taking a final view.  The technical discussion  

was,  therefore,  held  during  the  16th meeting  of  the  Standing  

Committee which was convened on 16.9.2009. In that meeting,  

the  representatives  of  the  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh  

(Additional  Chief  Secretary  and  Chief  Wildlife  Warden),  

Government  of  Gujarat  (Principal  Secretary  –  Forest  and  Chief  

Wildlife Warden) along with non-official members of the Standing  

Committee of National Board of Wildlife were also present during

Page 16

16

the  discussions.   The  following  decisions  were  taken  in  the  

technical discussion held on 16.9.2009:

“TECHNICAL  DISCUSSION  ON  THE  ISSUE  TRANSLOCATION OF ASIATIC LION FROM GIR TO KUNO  PALPUR  

It was followed by discussion on Agenda Item No.4  Member  Secretary  apprised  the  Committee  that  

during the last meeting it was decided to have detailed  technical  discussion  on  the  issue  of  translocation  of  lions  to  Madhya  Pradesh  (M.P.)  in  Kuno  Palpur  Sanctuary.   Chairman observed that  the  issue is  not  mere translocation of lions from Gujarat to M.P. but also  the long term viability of survival  of  the translocated  lions.  He also pointed out that in past lions have been  translocated in M.P.  as well as in U.P. unsuccessfully.  Further,  at  present  tiger  conservation  in  M.P.  also  requires  focused  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  State  Government.  Under these circumstances any decision  for  translocation  of  lions  needs  to  be  taken  very  carefully after judicious consultations.  

Dr. Divyabhanusinh Chavda informed that in the  previous  instances  of  lion’s  translocation  in  both  the  cases, lions were hunted because they became cattle  lifters  and  caused  acute  lion-man  conflict  in  the  introduced areas as  the  introduced areas were small  and devoid of adequate prey based.  However, this is  not  the  present  case.   At  present  hunting  is  legally  banned  and  proposed  introduction  area  is  not  only  having  enough  prey  base  but  also  devoid  of  human  population.  CWLW, M.P. also informed that Kuno Palpur  Sanctuary could accommodate even 60 lions as there  was  about  900  sq.  Km  of  buffer  area  around  the  Sanctuary.   There was enough prey base as  per  the  survey of the State Forest Department. The additional  Chief Secretary, Govt of M.P. submitted that the issue

Page 17

17

was not  between the two States  but  was  survival  of  lions and it needs to be provided an alternative home  outside 8the Gujarat State.  More than Rs.34.00 crores  have already been spent on the project.  In case wild  lions  are  not  available,  zoo  bred  lions  could  be  introduced in the identified area following soft release  as has been proposed in past.  Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh was  of the opinion that introduction of zoo bred or captive  bred lions in the wild were not correct approach.  The  only solution was to introduce wild population of lions.  Dr.  Asad  Rahmani  also  supported  these  views  of  Dr  Ranjitsinh.   

While  elaborating  the  issue  of  introduction  of  captive  bred  lions,  Director,  WII  informed  that  introduction  of  such  animals  in  wild  is  a  long drawn  process involving 6-12 years.  Only filial-2 or filial-3 of  the captive bred population could be introduced in wild  through  soft  release  and  it  would  require  strict  monitoring with scientific inputs at all levels supported  with  strong  political,  administrative  and  financial  commitments.  Member  Secretary  pointed  out  that  Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred this issue to the  Standing  Committee  with  particular  reference  to  additional affidavit filed by Gujarat State Government.  Chairman desired that  Ministry  could  prepare a  draft  response in the matter and get it circulated amongst  the  members  of  the  Standing  Committee  and  after  incorporating their views, a decision on the response to  be filed before the Hon’ble Court would be taken.  It  was  also  desired  that  this  draft  should  be  circulated  within one month among all the members.  Chairman  also  observed  that  ministry  may  restart  the  earlier  approved programme of  soft  release  of  captive  bred  lions in Kunopalpur.”

Page 18

18

15. The Standing Committee of NBWL then met on 22.12.2009,  

perused the  report  of  the  Technical  Committee  and made the  

following observations:

“It  is  submitted  that  in  view  of  the  above  background,  the  following are  the  observation  of  the  Standing Committee of National  Board for  Wildlife  on  the  issue  of  translocation  of  lion  from  Gujarat  to  Madhya Pradesh:

3.1 The population of  Asiatic  Lions in  India has  been restricted to its habitat in the Gir National Park  and Gir Sanctuary alone, where they face threats due to  man-animal conflict,  outbreak of possible epidemic or  any natural calamity, etc.  Such actions may wipe out  the whole population.  The need for a second home for  the  Asiatic  Lions  was  therefore  felt  and  accordingly,  based  on  habitat  feasibility  studies  by  the  Wildlife  Institute of India in various Protected Areas and forests  of  Gujarat,  Rajasthan  and  Madhya  Pradesh,  three  different sites were finally studied in greater detail out  of  which Kuno Palpur  sanctuary in  Morena District  of  Madhya  Pradesh  was  found  most  suitable  for  re- introduction  and  establishing  a  second  free  ranging  population of Asiatic Lion outside Gir.

3.2 The contention of the Government of Gujarat  that  the  Lions  would  not  be  able  to  survive  in  Kuno  Palpur due to its extreme climatic conditions is not true.  It may be mentioned here that the lions have thrived in  extreme  climate  from  the  deserts  of  Palestine  and  Arabia to the cold coniferous forest in Iran in historical  times.  They were destroyed not by climate, but by the  human action.  Lions exist and survive in a variety of  habitats with varied prey densities, temperatures and  vegetation communities across their range, and while  the overall prey densities of Gir are in the higher range

Page 19

19

of lion densities while that of Kuno are in the medium to  low density areas of lions, the natural prey densities in  Kuno  are  significantly  higher  than  the  natural  prey  densities in areas in south Saurashtra outside the Gir  where Lions have now taken residence and where the  State  Government  wishes  to  retain  them.  It  was  fro  these “outlying” Lion populations outside of the Gir that  translocation to Kuno Palpur was planned.  Therefore, it  would be unreasonable to compare Kuno prey densities  with  that  of  Gir  and then come to  a  conclusion  that  Kuno is unsuitable habitat for lions.  It is well within the  lion range of habitats and prey densities currently.

3.3 The Government of Gujarat, vide para 11 of  the  additional  affidavit,  had  stated  that  the  wildlife  Institute  of  India  has  used  simple  logistic  model  for  projections and predictions, while presenting population  growth  of  wild  ungulates.   This  contention  of  the  Government  of  Gujarat  is  not  appropriate.   In  fact,  models are abstractions of reality – Simplistic Models  have  general  applications  and  fewer  assumptions.  Complex  models  represent  specific  ecosystems  more  realistically  but  are  extremely  data  intensive.   Data  needed  for  models  like  the  one  suggested  by  the  Government  of  Gujarat  is  not  available  for  most  populations  in  India  and  therefore  remain  there  academic exercises. Model outcomes/recommendations  should  not  be  followed  blindly.   In  any  case,  an  evaluation of prey densities should be done again prior  to  the  proposed  reintroduction  of  lions  and  the  reintroduction schedule/plan appropriately modified to  be in tune with the realized rate of increase by prey  populations of Kuno.   It is part of the original plan and  in any case, as noted above, the natural prey densities  in  Kuno  are  higher  than  in  areas  where  Lions  have  taken  residence  outside  of  Gir  in  Gujarat  and  where  they live mainly by preying on livestock.

3.4 The Gir lions have passed through two bottle  necks on about 1 to 4 thousand years ago and another

Page 20

20

about  150-200  years  ago  and  are  therefore  highly  inbred. The reintroduction effort does not end with the  introduction of a pride of lions into Kuno.  A continued  program  of  exchange/supplementation  of  individual  lions between Gir and Kuno is needed at the rate of 2-3  lions  per  generation.   This  supplementation needs to  continue till the Kuno lion population Gene pool nears  that of Gir lions.  It is envisaged that such exchanges to  last for a minimum duration of 25-30 years but would  benefit  from continued exchanges over a longer time  scale.    The  Kuno  and  Gir  populations  could  be  managed  as  a  meta-population  that  would  provide  demographic as well as genetic benefits to the Gir lion  population as well.

3.5 The contention of Government of Gujarat that  translocation of Lions made in earlier occasion during  early  20th century and during 1956,  especially  to  the  Chandraprabha Wildlife Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh was  unsuccessful  and  therefore  the  present  translocation  also would not yield much results is not correct.  The  reason being that  in  the previous instances of  Lion’s  translocation, lions were hunted because they became  cattle lifters and caused acute lion-man conflict in the  introduced areas as  the  introduced areas were small  and devoid of adequate prey base and burdened with  human  population.  However,  this  is  not  the  present  case.   At  present  hunting  is  legally  banned  and  proposed introduction area is not only having enough  prey  base  but  also  devoid  of  human  population.  Further  there  are  better  scientific  inputs,  full  commitment  on  the  part  of  State  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh  and  required  home  work  has  been  done.  Therefore, present relocation is not comparable  with earlier efforts.

3.6 The  issue  of  poaching  is  vital.  The  Government  of  Gujarat  has  dealt  with  it  quite  well.  Poaching will continue to be a threat as long as there is  a demand for lion0tiger parts.  In the Kuno area also the

Page 21

21

management  have  to  be  much  more  vigilant  with  regard to poaching.  Further, there is also a need for a  collective  action  by  the  Central  Government,  State  Governments  along  with  a  strong  political  and  bureaucratic commitment as well as full and dedicated  support  of  technocrats  and  scientists  for  better  and  long term conservation of  such a  species  of  national  pride and what was once Indi’s National Animal.

3.7 The objective of the Government of India is to  conserve Asiatic lions for posterity and this effort does  not end by mere introduction of a lion pride to Kuno.  It  would be imperative that Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh  work  together  in  designing  a  Meta-population  management plan based on genetic and demographic  data of the Asiatic lions to ensure that this objective is  met.   Without  this  cooperative  approach,  lion  conservation objective of the Nation/World will not be  met.

In view of the aforesaid, it is recommended that  the translocation of lions from Gir area to an alternate  area,  presently  to  the  Kuno-Palpur  Sanctuary,  is  the  necessity of the hour essential for conservation of lions  for  posterity.   As  mentioned  above,  the  efforts  for  conservation  of  lions  would  not  stop  by  mere  translocation efforts, but it would continue through the  active involvement of all the stakeholders.”

 16.  The Standing Committee then authorized the MoEF to file an  

affidavit to that effect before this Court.  Accordingly, an affidavit  

was filed before this Court by MoEF on 7.1.2010.  State of Gujarat  

also filed a detailed affidavit on 12.11.2010.  In its affidavit, the

Page 22

22

State of Gujarat highlighted the insufficiency of prey base at Kuno  

and the presence of tigers in the occupied area at Kuno as the  

major limiting factors.   Further, it was also pointed out that the  

current Asiatic lion population is not a single population confined  

to one place but consists of meta-population spread over several  

locations  within  the  Greater  Gir  Region  and  that  good  

conservation  practices  and  intensive  wild  life  health  care,  has  

lead to epidemic free regime over generations of wildlife including  

Asiatic Lion in the area.

17. The State of Gujarat took up the stand that, though the issue  

was discussed by the Standing Committee of NBWL, it had not  

been placed before the State Board for Wildlife (Gujarat), which is  

a statutory requirement under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.  This  

Court,  therefore,  on  27.2.2012,  directed  the  State  Board  to  

consider the issue of lions’ translocation and to submit its report.  

Accordingly, the matter was placed before the State Board.  The  

State Board took the view that there was no threat to Asiatic Lion  

in the Gir forest from epidemic diseases or other such factors.  It  

was pointed out that the present Asiatic lion population has risen  

from a broad based and a reasonably good population has been

Page 23

23

achieved.   Further, it was pointed out that previous attempts for  

translocation  from  Gujarat  were  also  a  failure  and  since  the  

Greater Gir region being an ideal preservation and conservation  

for  Asiatic  lions,  there  is  no necessity  of  finding  out  a  second  

home for Asiatic lion at Kuno.

ARGUMENTS:

18. We  heard  Shri  Raj  Panjwani,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  applicant,  who  submitted  that  this  20-year  

project is hanging on fire due to the indifferent attitude of the  

Gujarat Government.  Learned senior counsel submitted that the  

necessity  of  re-introduction  of  Asiatic  lion  at  Kuno  has  been  

keenly felt and the scientific world has unanimously advocated for  

translocation of this endangered species to Kuno for its long term  

survival  and preservation.   Learned senior  counsel  pointed out  

that NBWL, the expert technical body at more than one occasions  

has approved and granted technical sanction to go ahead with the  

project, but could not pick up expected momentum due to the  

indifferent and defiant attitude of the State of Gujarat.  

Page 24

24

19. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing for the  

State of Madhya Pradesh, highlighted the steps taken by the State  

of  Madhya Pradesh for  pushing the project  forward.    Learned  

counsel  referred  to  the  various  counter  affidavits  filed  by  the  

State of  Madhya Pradesh for  completing the first  phase of  the  

project.  Necessary sanction has already been obtained to declare  

Kuno as Sanctuary under the Wildlife Protection Act.  MoEF has  

already  granted  its  approval  under  Section  2  of  the  Forest  

(Conservation) Act for diversion of 3395.9 hectare of forest land  

for  the  rehabilitation  of  eighteen  villages  located  inside  Kuno,  

subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.   The area at Kuno was  

increased  to  1268.861  Sq.  Km  in  April  2002  by  creating  a  

separate Kuno Wildlife Division.  For the above purpose, a total  

amount of Rs.1545 lakh had been granted by the Government of  

India and utilized by the State Government.  Learned counsel also  

pointed out that altogether 24 villages and 1543 families were  

relocated  outside  Kuno  by  the  year  2002-2003  and  the  lands  

abandoned by them have been developed into grass lands.   

20. Learned counsel also pointed out that prey density at Kuno  

has far exceeded the prey density at Gir.  Reference was made to

Page 25

25

the Prey Density Survey conducted during 2004-2005 by Mr. Fiaz  

A.  Khudsar  and  Mr.  Raman  in  the  year  2008.   Firstly,  it  was  

pointed out that WII had also conducted an independent study in  

the year 2012, which also supported the stand taken by the State  

of Madhya Pradesh that there is sufficient prey base to receive  

sufficient numbers of lions.  Over and above, adequate training  

has also been given to the forest staff, guards etc. for receiving  

the lions and for their upkeep and monitoring.

21. Shri  P.  K.  Malhotra,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General,  

submitted that the population of Asiatic lion is increasing at Gir,  

but  there are conceivable  threats  to  their  survival;  man-made,  

natural calamity as well as outbreak of epidemic, which may wipe  

out the entire population, due to their small population base and  

limited  geographical  area  of  spread.   It  is  under  such  

circumstances, the need for a second home for lions was felt, for  

which Kuno was found to be the most suitable habitat.  However,  

it  was pointed  out  that  the  lions  could  be  translocated only  if  

sufficient  number  of  ungulates  is  available  and  after  taking  

effective  measures,  such  as,  control  of  poaching,  grassland

Page 26

26

management,  water  management,  building  rubble  wall  around  

the division etc.  Learned senior counsel made reference to the  

study conducted by the experts of WII and Wildlife Trust of India  

of  the  programme  of  re-introduction  of  Cheetah  in  Kuno,  on  

import from Namibia.  Referring to the correspondence between  

the  Ministry  of  State  (External  Affairs)  and  Chief  Minister  of  

Madhya  Pradesh,  it  was  pointed  out  that  subsequent  re-

introduction of lions is in no way expected to affect the cheetah  

population,  which  would  have  established in  the  area,  by  that  

time.  

22. Shri  P.  S.  Narasimha,  learned  senior  counsel  and  learned  

Amicus Curiae apprised the court of the extreme urgency for the  

protection of the Asiatic lion which has been included in the Red  

List  published  by  the  International  Union  for  Conservation  of  

Natgure  (IUCN)  as  critically  endangered  species,  endorsed  by  

NBWL in various meetings.   NBWL, being the highest scientific  

statutory body, it commands respect and its opinion is worthy of  

acceptance by the MoEF and all the State Governments.  Learned  

senior counsel also referred to Article 48 and Article 51-A of the

Page 27

27

Constitution of India and submitted that the State has a duty to  

protect and improve environment and safeguard the forests and  

wildlife in the country, a duty cast upon all the States in the Union  

of India.  Reference was also made to the conservatism in Bio-

Diversity  and  the  Eco-centric  principle,  which  have  been  

universally accepted.  Learned senior counsel also referred to the  

National  Wildlife  Action  Plan  2002-2016,  and  submitted  that  

translocation of Asiatic lions has been treated as a priority project  

after having found that an alternative home for Asiatic lion is vital  

for its survival.   Learned senior counsel also submitted that the  

National Forest Policy and the Scheme of 2009 and NWAP (2002-

2016) and the plans have legislative force as decided in Lafarge  

Umiam  Mining  Private  Limited, T.N.  Godavarman  

Thirumulpad v.  Union of India and others (2011) 7 SCC 338  

case and can be enforced through Courts.

23. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

State of Gujarat, refuted all those contentions and reiterated that  

there is  no necessity  of  finding out  a second home for  Asiatic  

lions,  since  the  population  of  Asiatic  lion  has  been  properly

Page 28

28

protected in Greater Gir forest and also in few other sanctuaries  

near  Gir  Forest.  Shri  Divan  submitted  that  the  population  of  

Asiatic lion has gone up reasonably since broader conservation  

methods have been adopted by the State of Gujarat and that at  

present, there is no immediate threat to the Asiatic lions calling  

for  emergency  measures,  like  translocation  or  reintroduction.  

Learned senior counsel further pointed out that past experience  

shows  that  such  translocation  of  lions  ended  in  failure  and  

possibility of such recurrence cannot be ruled out, since Kuno is  

not  well  set  to  accept  or  preserve an endangered species like  

Asiatic lion; which is a success story at Gir.   

24. Shri  Divan  also  submitted  that,  so  far,  no  acceptable  

translocation  plan  has  been  prepared  or  implemented  for  a  

successful translocation of an endangered species like Asiatic lion  

and the same has been taken note of and commented upon the  

State Wildlife  Board,  Gujarat  in its  meeting held on 16.3.2012.  

Shri Divan also submitted that the prey-base studies are totally  

inadequate and not a single study has been conducted or report  

placed before this Court to show that the benchmark of 480,000

Page 29

29

kgs. of wild ungulates biomass has been attained at Kuno.  Shri  

Divan also referred to the note dated 8.7.2012 submitted by Dr.  

Ravi  Chellam  and  contended  that  no  reliable  information  was  

furnished to support the view regarding adequacy of prey base at  

Kuno.   Shri  Divan also referred to Section 12 of the Wild Life  

(Protection) Act and submitted that the translocation should be to  

‘an alternative suitable habitat”.  Kuno, according to the learned  

senior  counsel,  is  not  a  ‘suitable  habitat’,  not  only  due  to  

inadequacy of prey-base, but also due to factors like presence of  

tigers, large scale poaching, unfavourable climate condition, lack  

of expertise, human-animal conflict etc.

25. Learned senior counsel also referred to the issues raised by  

the petitioner through this PIL and contended that it would not  

stand the tests laid in Lafarge case (supra), especially when the  

State  Board  of  Wild  Life  has  stated  cogent  reasons  why  

translocation of lions to Kuno, at present, is not advisable, which  

is  fully  justified  by  the  objections  and  independent  scientific  

material.   Such decision, according to the learned senior counsel,  

is  not  amenable  to  judicial  review  and,  even  otherwise,  no

Page 30

30

grounds are made out for issuing a  Writ of Mandamus directing  

translocation of Asiatic lion from Gir to Kuno.

Legal Framework

26. We  will  first  deal  with  the  constitutional  and  the  legal  

framework on which we have to examine the various issues which  

have  come  up  for  consideration  in  this  case.   The  subject  

“Protection of wild animals and birds” falls  under List  III,  Entry  

17B of Seventh Schedule.  The Parliament passed The Wild Life  

(Protection) Act 53 of 1972 to provide for the protection of wild  

animals  and  birds  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the  ecological  and  

environmental  security  of  the  country.   The  Parliament  vide  

Constitution  (42nd Amendment)  Act,  1976  inserted  Article  48A  

w.e.f.  03.01.1977  in  Part  IV  of  the  Constitution  placing  

responsibility on the State “to endeavour to protect and improve  

the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the   

country.”   Article  51A  was  also  introduced  in  Part  IVA  by  the  

above-mentioned amendment stating that “it shall be the duty of   

every  citizen  of  India  to  protect  and  improve  the  natural  

Page 31

31

environment  including forests,  lakes,  rivers  and wildlife  and to   

have compassion for living creatures”.

27. By Act 23 of 1982, Section 12(bb) was inserted in the Wild  

Life (Protection) Act w.e.f. 21.05.1982 which authorised the Chief  

Wild  Life  Warden to  grant  a  special  permit  for  the purpose of  

scientific management which would include translocation of any  

wild  animal  to  an  alternative  suitable  habitat  or  population  

management of wild life without killing or poisoning or destroying  

any wild animals.

28. The Parliament later vide Act 16 of 2003 inserted Section 5A  

w.e.f.  22.09.2003  authorizing  the  Central  Government  to  

constitute the National Board for Wild Life (in short ‘NBWL’).  By  

the  same  Amendment  Act,  Section  5C  was  also  introduced  

eliciting functions  of  the National  Board.   Section 5B was also  

introduced by the aforesaid amendment authorizing the National  

Board  to  constitute  a  Standing  Committee  for  the  purpose  of  

exercising such powers and performing such duties as may be  

delegated to  the Committee  by the National  Board.   NBWL is,

Page 32

32

therefore,  the  top  most  scientific  body  established  to  frame  

policies and advise the Central  and State Governments on the  

ways and means of promoting wild life conservation and to review  

the progress in the field of wild life conservation in the country  

and suggesting measures for improvement thereto.  The Central  

and the State Governments cannot brush aside its opinion without  

any cogent or acceptable reasons.  Legislation in its wisdom has  

conferred  a  duty  on  NBWL  to  provide  conservation  and  

development of wild life and forests.

29. This Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010)  

10 SCC 604 held that all efforts must be made to implement the  

spirit and provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972;  the  

provisions  of  which  are  salutary  and  are  necessary  to  be  

implemented  to  maintain  ecological  chain  and  balance.   The  

Stockholm  Declaration,  the  Declaration  of  United  Nations,  

Conventions on Human Environment signed in the year 1972, to  

which India is  the signatory,  have laid down the foundation of  

sustainable development and urged the nations to work together  

for the protection of the environment.  Conventions on Biological

Page 33

33

Diversity, signed in the year 1962 at Rio Summit, recognized for  

the  first  time  in  International  Law  that  the  conservation  of  

biological diversity is “a common concern of human kind” and is  

an integral part of the development process.

30. The Parliament enacted the Biological  Diversity  Act  in  the  

year 2002 followed by the National Biodiversity Rules in the year  

2004.   The  main  objective  of  the  Act  is  the  conservation  of  

biological  diversity,  sustainable  use of  its  components  and fair  

and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization  

of  genetic  resources.    Bio-diversity  and  biological  diversity  

includes all the organisms found on our planet i.e. plants, animals  

and micro-organisms, the genes they contain and the different  

eco-systems of which they form a part.  The rapid deterioration of  

the  ecology  due  to  human  interference  is  aiding  the  rapid  

disappearance of several wild animal species.  Poaching and the  

wildlife trade, habitat loss, human-animal conflict, epidemic etc.  

are also some of the reasons which threaten and endanger some  

of the species.

Page 34

34

31. India is known for its rich heritage of biological diversity and  

has so far documented over 91,200 species of animals.  In India’s  

bio-graphic regions, 45,500 species of plants are documented as  

per  IUCN Red List  2008.   India  has  many critically  threatened  

animal  species.   IUCN  has  noticed  today  the  only  living  

representative of lions once found throughout much of south-west  

Asia occurred in India’s Gir forest which has been noticed as a  

critically endangered species in IUCN Red List.  The IUCN adopted  

a resolution of 1963 by which a multi-lateral treaty was drafted as  

the  Washington  Convention  also  known  as  the  Convention  on  

International  Trade  in  Endangered  Species  of  Wild  Fauna  and  

Flora (CITES), 1973.  CITES entered into force on 1st July, 1975,  

which aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild  

animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the species  

in the wild, and it accords varying degrees of protection to more  

than 33,000 species of animals and plants.  Appendix 1 of CITES  

refers  to  1200  species  which  are  threatened  with  extinction.  

Asiatic  lion  is  listed  in  Appendix  1  recognizing  that  species  is  

threatened with extinction.  

Page 35

35

32. We  notice  for  achieving  the  objectives  of  various  

conventions  including  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  (CBD)  

and also for proper implementation of IUCN, CITES etc., and the  

provisions  of  the  Wild  Life  (Protection)  Act,  Bio-diversity  Act,  

Forest  Conservation  Act  etc.  in  the  light  of  Articles  48A  and  

51A(g), the Government of India has laid down various policies  

and action plans such as the National Forest Policy (NFP) 1988,  

National  Environment  Policy  (NEP)  2006,  National  Bio-diversity  

Action Plan (NBAP) 2008, National Action Plan on Climate Change  

(NAPCC)  2008  and  the  Integrated  development  of  wild  life  

habitats and centrally sponsored scheme framed in the year 2009  

and  integrated  development  of  National  Wild-life  Action  Plan  

(NWAP) 2002-2016.   In Lafarge case (supra) this Court held that  

National  Forest  Policy  1988  be  read  together  with  the  Forest  

(Conservation)  Act,  1980.   In  our  view,  the  integrated  

Development of Wile Life habitat under the Centrally Sponsored  

Scheme of  2009  and  the  NWAP (2002-2016)  have  to  be  read  

along with the provisions of the Wile Life (Conservation) Act.

Page 36

36

33. The Prime Minister of India on 1.1.2002, in the XXI Meeting  

of  the  Indian  Board for  Wildlife,  released the  ‘National  Wildlife  

Action Plan (2002-2016)’ (in short NWAP 2002-2016).  NWAP has  

highlighted that  the  wildlife  encompasses  all  uncultivated  flora  

and undomesticated fauna and every species has the right to live  

and every threatened species must be protected to prevent its  

extinction.   It  was  noticed  with  the  mounting  agricultural,  

industrial  and  demographic  pressures,  wilderness  areas,  which  

are the richest repositories of wildlife and biodiversity have either  

shrunk or disappeared and their continued existence is crucial for  

the  long  term survival  of  the  biodiversity  and  the  ecosystems  

supporting them.  NWAP,  inter alia,  highlighted the necessity to  

protect the long term ecological security of India and to identify  

and  protect  natural  ecosystems  from  over-exploitation,  

contamination  and  degradation.   NWAP  has  also  urged  the  

necessity to give primacy to in situ conservation which is a sheet  

anchor of wildlife conservation.  Ex situ  measures in zoological  

parks  and gene banks  may supplement  this  objective,  without  

depleting  scarce  wild  resources.   NWAP  also  highlighted  the

Page 37

37

ecological requirements for the survival of threatened, rare and  

endangered species together with their community associations  

of flora and fauna.  It also highlighted the imperative necessity to  

have alternative homes for  highly  endangered species like the  

Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Asiatic Lion, Wild Buffalo,  

Dugong, the Manipur Brow Antlered Deer and the like.  It was also  

noticed  that  where  in  situ conservation  efforts  are  unlikely  to  

succeed,  ex  situ captive  breeding  and  rehabilitation  measures  

may be necessary, in tandem with the preparation of their wild  

habitats to receive back captive populations, especially in respect  

of  lesser-known  species  where  status  and  distribution  of  wild  

animals are not fully known.  NWAP also highlighted the necessity  

of taking the following actions:

1. To identify all endangered species of flora and fauna, study  

their  needs  and  survey  their  environs  and  habitats  to  

establish  the  current  level  of  security  and  the  nature  of  

threats.  Conduct periodic reviews of flora and fauna species  

status, and correlate the same with the IUCN Red Data List  

every three years.

Page 38

38

2. Invest  special  care and resources to  protect  habitats  that  

harbour highly endangered species especially those having  

single population and a high degree of endemism.

3. Initiate  action  to  prevent  the  “genetic  swamping”  of  wild  

species.

4. To undertake a programme of  ex situ captive breeding and  

rehabilitation in the wild for critically endangered species in  

accordance with IUCN guidelines, after developing requisite  

techniques and capabilities in this regard.

5. To publish flora and fauna species status papers periodically,  

which should be translated into local languages.

6. To  declare  identified  areas  around  Protected  Areas  and  

corridors  as  ecologically  fragile  under  the  Environment  

(Protection) Act, 1986, wherever necessary.

NWAP also highlighted the priority projects and to initiate a time-

bound  plan  to  identify  and  conduct  status  surveys  of  all  

endangered species covering all  groups of rare and threatened  

species  of  flora  and  fauna  and  to  provide  protection  to  the  

environs and habitats of all rare and threatened species of flora

Page 39

39

and fauna under the priority projects.  2.2 of Para 3 of NWAP read  

as follows:

“2.2 Identify  suitable  alternative  homes  for  single  isolated populations of species such as Jerdon’s Courser,  Asiatic Lion, Manipur Deer, Wroughton’s Free Tailed Bat  and the like, and manage the same as Protected Areas  effectively.”

34. NWAP also states that the same is the responsibility of MoEF,  

State  Governments,  Scientific  Institutions  and  NGOs.   The  

necessity  to  take  immediate  steps  for  preventing  the  entry  of  

domestic and feral species that may lead to genetic swamping,  

has  also  been  highlighted.   The  importance  to  safeguard  

genetically  pure  populations  from future  genetic  contamination  

and where genetic  swamping has  occurred,  to  phase out  such  

swamping,  was  also  highlighted.    NWAP,  in  chapter  IV,  has  

highlighted the necessity to the restoration and management of  

degraded habitats outside the protected areas.   

35. MoEF  noticed  that  the  fragmented  nature  of  wildlife  rich  

areas,  increased  human  pressure,  habitat  degradation,

Page 40

40

proliferation of invasive species, man-animal conflicts, poaching,  

impacts of changing climate etc. are some of the challenges that  

has to be addressed at a war footing.    The necessity for ensuring  

better  protection  of  wildlife  outside  the  protected  areas  and  

initiating recovery programmes for  saving critically  endangered  

species and habitats has also been high-lighted.  Keeping that in  

view,  a  comprehensive  Centrally  Sponsored  Scheme  titled  

‘Integrated  Development  of  Wildlife  Habitats’  has  been  made  

operational on 30.7.2009 which was in addition to the erstwhile  

Centrally Sponsored Scheme – ‘Assistance for the Development of  

National  Parks  and  Sanctuaries’.   The  scheme  incorporated  

additional  components  and  activities  for  implementing  the  

provisions  of  the  Wildlife  (Protection)  Act,  1972,  the  National  

Wildlife  Action Plan (2002-2016),  recommendations of the Tiger  

Task Force, 2005 and the National Forest Commission, 2006 and  

the  necessities  felt  from  time  to  time  for  the  conservation  of  

wildlife  and  biodiversity  in  the  country.   The  scheme  was  

formulated during the 11th year plan.   

Page 41

41

36. India  has  a  network  of  99  national  parks,  515  wildlife  

sanctuaries, 43 conservation reserves and 4 community reserves  

in different bio-geographic zones.  Many important habitats, still  

exists outside those areas, which requires special attention from  

the  point  of  view  of  conservation.   The  Centrally  Sponsored  

Scheme also specifically refers to the recovery programmes for  

saving critically endangered species and habitats.   Due to variety  

of  reasons,  several  species  and  their  habitats  have  become  

critically  endangered.   Snow  leopard,  Great  Indian  Bustard,  

Kashmir  Stag,  Gangetic  Dolphin,  Nilgiri  Tahr,  Malabar  Civet,  

marine turtles, etc are few examples.   

37. The scope of the Centrally Sponsored scheme was examined  

in  T.  N.  Godavarman Thirumulpad v.  Union of  India  and  

others  (2012)  3  SCC 277  (Wilde  Buffalo  case)  and  this  Court  

directed  implementation  of  that  scheme  in  the  State  of  

Chhattisgarh.   The  centrally  sponsored  scheme,  as  already  

indicated,  specifically  refers  to  the  Asiatic  lions  as  a  critically  

endangered species and highlighted the necessity for a recovery  

programme to ensure the long term conservation of lions.   NWAP

Page 42

42

2002-2016 and the Centrally Sponsored Scheme 2009 relating to  

integrated  development  of  wildlife  habitats  are  schemes  which  

have statutory status and as held in  Lafarge case  (supra) and  

have to be implemented in their letter and spirit.   While giving  

effect to the various provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, the  

Centrally  Sponsored  Scheme  2009,  the  NWAP  2002-2016  our  

approach should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric.

ANTHROPOCENTRIC VS. ECO-CENTRIC

38. We may point out that has been wide ranging discussions  

and deliberations on the international platforms and conferences  

for  re-building  of  certain  principles  laid  down  in  the  earlier  

conventions on the Principles of Sustainable Development.  The  

United  Nations  Commission  on  Environment  and  Development  

defined the ‘sustainable development’ as follows:

“Sustainable development is the development that meets  the needs of the present without compromising the ability  of future generations to meet their  own needs.” (World  Commission  on  Economic  Development  [WCED],  1987 :  43)

Page 43

43

39. Sustainable  development,  it  has  been  argued  by  various  

eminent environmentalists, clearly postulates an anthropocentric  

bias, least concerned with the rights of other species which live  

on  this  earth.   Anthropocentrism  is  always  human  interest  

focussed thinking that non-human has only instrumental value to  

humans,  in  other  words,  humans take precedence and human  

responsibilities to non-human are based benefits to humans.  Eco-

centrism is nature-centred, where humans are part of nature and  

non-humans have intrinsic value.  In other words, human interest  

does  not  take  automatic  precedence  and  humans  have  

obligations to non-humans independently of human interest.  Eco-

centrism is, therefore, life-centred, nature-centred where nature  

includes both humans and non-humans.    

40. We re-iterate that while examining the necessity of a second  

home for the Asiatic lions, our approach should be eco-centric and  

not anthropocentric and we must apply the “species best interest  

standard”, that is the best interest of the Asiatic lions.  We must  

focus  our  attention  to  safeguard  the  interest  of  species,  as  

species has equal rights to exist on this earth.  Asiatic Lion has

Page 44

44

become  critically  endangered  because  of  human  intervention.  

The specie originally existed in North Africa and South-West Asia  

formerly stretched across the coastal forests of northern Africa  

and from northern Greece across south-west Asia to eastern India.  

Today  the  only  living  representatives  of  the  lions  once  found  

throughout much of South-West Asia occur in India's Gir Forest.  

Asiatic lion currently exists as a single sub-population and is thus  

vulnerable to extinction from unpredictable events,  such as an  

epidemic  or  large  forest  fire  etc.  and  we  are  committed  to  

safeguard  this  endangered species  because this  species  has a  

right to live on this earth, just like human beings.

41. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only the  

human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to  

protect and preserve a specie becoming extinct, conservation and  

protection of environment is an inseparable part of right to life. In  

M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC 388, this  

Court enunciated the doctrine of “public trust”, the thrust of that  

theory  is  that  certain  common  properties  such  as  rivers,  

seashores,  forests  and the  air  are  held  by  the  Government  in

Page 45

45

trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public.  

The resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a  

great importance to the people as a whole, that it would be totally  

unjustified to  make them a subject  of  private ownership.   The  

State,  as  a  custodian  of  the  natural  resources,  has  a  duty  to  

maintain them not merely for the benefit of the public, but for the  

best interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and so on.  The doctrine  

of ‘public trust’ has to be addressed in that perspective.   

42. We, as human beings, have a duty to prevent the species  

from going extinct and have to advocate for an effective species  

protection  regimes.   NWAP  2002-2016  and  the  Centrally  

Sponsored  Scheme  2009  indicate  that  there  are  many  animal  

species which are close enough to extinction and some of  the  

other  species  have  already  disappeared  from  this  earth.   No  

species can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely and that  

the  continued  existence  of  any  species  depends  upon  various  

factors  like  human-animal  conflict,  epidemics,  forest  fire  and  

other natural calamities etc.

Page 46

46

43. The Wildlife Biologists of WII, after conducting a research on  

Gir Forests, noticed the necessity for long term conservation of  

Asiatic lion in Gir and also highlighted the necessity of a second  

natural  habitat  for  its  long term conservation.   Population and  

Habitat Analysis Workshop held at Baroda in October, 1993 also  

highlighted  that  fact.  NBWL,  as  already  indicted,  has  taken  a  

consistent view in all its meetings about the necessity of a second  

habitat for Asiatic lion, an endangered species.  Asiatic lion, it has  

been noticed, has been restricted to only one single habitat, i.e.  

the Gir National Forest and its surrounding areas and an outbreak  

of possible epidemic or natural calamity might wipe off the entire  

species.    A smaller population with limited genetic strength are  

more  vulnerable  to  diseases  and  other  catastrophes  in  

comparison  to  large  and  widespread  population.   Threat,  

therefore,  is  real  and  has  proved  by  the  outbreak  of  canine  

distemper in the lions of Serengeti NP, Tanzania in 1994.  85% of  

the  Serengeti  lion  population,  it  was  noticed,  had  Canine  

Distemper Virus antibodies and at least 30% of the Serengeti and  

Mara lions died due to the infection.  Compared with Gir, the lion  

population  in  the  40,000  sq.  km.  Serengeti-Mara  ecosystem is

Page 47

47

large with about 2500 lions.  It was felt that if an epidemic of this  

scale were to affect the lions in Gir, it would be very difficult to  

save them from extinction, given the much smaller area of the Gir  

forests  and the smaller  lion  population.   The possibility  of  the  

decease  spreading  to  the  pockets  of  habitat  such  as  Girnar,  

Mityala,  Rajula,  Kodinar  and  the  surrounding  areas,  cannot  be  

ruled out.

44. We have already indicated that  there  is  uniformity  in  the  

views expressed by the Bio-Scientists  of  WII,  NBWL,  MoEF and  

other experts that to have a second home for the endangered  

species like Asiatic lion is of vital importance.  A detailed study  

has been conducted to find out the most suitable habitat for its  

re-introduction and Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (for short ‘Kuno’) in  

Madhya Pradaesh, as already indicted, has been found to be the  

most ideal habitat.

Ownership and Possession of wild Animals

45. No  state,  organisation  or  person  can  claim  ownership  or  

possession over wild animals in the forest.  Wild Animal is defined

Page 48

48

under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 under Section 2(36) to  

mean any animal specified in schedules I to IV and found wild in  

nature.   ‘Wild  Life’  has  been  defined  under  Section  2(37)  to  

include any animal,  bees, butterflies, crustacean, fish and moths,  

and or land vegetation which forms part of any habitat.  Section 9  

prohibits hunting of wild animals, specified in Schedule I, II, III and  

IV except as provided under Section 11 and Section 12.  Section  

40 of the Act obliges a person to make a declaration and Section  

41 enables the Chief Wild Life Warden to make an enquiry and  

preparation of inventories and Section 42 deals with the issue of  

certificates and confers,  no ownership of the wild animals to a  

particular state or others.  Animals in the wild are properties of  

the nation for which no state can claim ownership and the state’s  

duty is to protect the wild life and conserve it, for ensuring the  

ecological and environmental security of the country.

46. Several migratory birds, mammals, and animals in wild cross  

national  and  international  borders  created  by  man  and  every  

nation have a duty and obligation to ensure their protection.  No  

nation or  organisation can claim ownership  or  possession over

Page 49

49

them, the Convention on the conservation of migratory species of  

wild animals held at Bonn, 1979, supports this principle and the  

convention  recognises  that  wild  animals  in  their  innumerable  

forms  are  irreplaceable  part  of  the  earth;  natural  system and  

must  be  conserved  for  the  good  of  the  mankind.   It  has  

recognised that the states are and must be the protectors of the  

migratory species of wild animals that live within or pass through  

their  national  jurisdictional  boundaries.   Convention  highlights  

that conservation and effective management of migratory species  

of wild animals require the concerted action of all states within  

the national jurisdictional boundaries of which such species spend  

any  part  of  their  life  cycle.   India  is  also  a  signatory  to  that  

convention.

47. State of Gujarat has taken up the stand that it has got its  

own conservation programme in respect of Asiatic lion.  Due the  

effective  conservation  programme  carried  out  by  the  State  of  

Gujarat at Gir, it was pointed out, that the number of Asiatic lions  

in  the  wildlife  has  increased,  the  range  of  these  lions  has  

increased, the statutorily protected habitat has increased, so also

Page 50

50

the area occupied by these lions has increased.   The State has  

maintained  the  stand  that  there  is  no  present  or  immediate  

danger to the Asiatic lions warranting any emergency measures.

48. State Board for Wildlife, Gujarat (SBWL, Gujarat), which has  

been constituted by the State Government under Section 6 of the  

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, convened a meeting on 16.3.2012  

to discuss the issue relating to translocation of Asiatic lion from  

Gujarat to Madhya Pradesh.   SBWL, Gujarat and took the view  

that that the issue of giving or not giving lions to Kuno is not an  

issue  of  conflict  between  States,  but  it  is  a  collective  Indian  

cultural approach in the interest of long term conservation of lions  

as part of our family.  SBWL further maintained the stand that  

Asiatic Lion being a “family member” is beyond and higher than  

the “scientific reasoning”.  SBWL, therefore, did not agree with  

the  proposal  for  translocation  of  lion  from Gujarat  to  Kuno,  a  

stand endorsed by the State of Gujarat.

49. Approach  made  by  SWBL  and  the  State  of  Gujarat  is  an  

anthropocentric  approach,  not  eco-centric  though  the  State  of  

Gujarat can be justifiably proud of the fact that it has preserved

Page 51

51

an  endangered  specie  becoming  extinct.   We  are,  however,  

concerned  with  a  fundamental  issue  whether  the  Asiatic  lions  

should have a second home.  The cardinal issue is not whether  

the Asiatic  lion is  a  “family  member”  or  is  part  of  the “Indian  

culture  and  civilization”,  or  the  pride  of  a  State  but  the  

preservation of an endangered species for which we have to apply  

the “species best interest standard”.  Our approach should not be  

human-centric  or  family-centric  but  eco-centric.   “Scientific  

reasoning” for its re-location has to supersede the family bond or  

pride  of  the  people  and  we  have  to  look  at  the  species  best  

interest especially in a situation where the specie is found to be a  

critically endangered one and the necessity of a second home has  

been keenly felt.  We, therefore, find it difficult to agree with the  

reasoning  of  SBWL,  Gujarat  and  the  State  of  Gujarat  that  the  

Asiatic lion is a family member and hence be not parted with.

50. The views of NBWL constituted by the Central Government in  

exercise of its powers conferred under Section 5A of the Wildlife  

Protection Act, have to prevail over the views expressed by SBWL.  

The duties conferred on the National Board under Section 5C of

Page 52

52

the Act and on the State Board under Section 8 of the Act are  

entirely different.  NBWL has a duty to promote conservation and  

development of wildlife and frame policies and advise the Central  

Government  and  the  State  Governments  on  the  ways  and  

importance of  promoting wildlife  conservation.   It  has  to  carry  

out/make assessment of various projects and activities on wildlife  

or its habitat.  NBWL has also to review from time to time the  

progress in the field of wildlife conservation in the country and  

suggest measures for improving thereto.  Those functions have  

not been conferred on the State Board.  The State Board has been  

conferred  with  a  duty  to  advise  the  State  Government  the  

selection and management of areas to be declared as protected  

areas  and  advise  the  State  Government  in  formation  of  their  

policies for protection and conservation of the wildlife and specify  

plans  etc.   Statutorily,  therefore,  it  is  the  duty  of  NBWL  to  

promote conservation and development of wildlife with a view to  

ensuring  ecological  and  environmental  security  in  the  country.  

We are, therefore, of the view that the various decisions taken by  

NBWL that Asiatic lion should have a second home to save it from  

extinction, due to catastrophes like epidemic, large forest fire etc,

Page 53

53

which could result in extinction, is justified.   This Court, sitting in  

the jurisdiction, is not justified in taking a contrary view from that  

of NBWL.    

HISTORICAL HABITAT – RE-INTRODUCTION

51. No specie can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely  

and  the  probabilities  associated  with  a  critically  endangered  

specie make their extinction a matter of time.  Convention biology  

is  the  science  that  studies  bio-diversity  and  the  dynamics  of  

extinction.   Eco-system  approach  to  protecting  endangered  

species emphasises  on recovery,  and complement  and support  

eco-system based conservation approach.  Reintroduction of an  

animal or plant into the habitat from where it has become extinct  

is  also  known  as  ex-situ  conservation.   India  has  successfully  

achieved certain  re-introduction  programmes,  for  example,  the  

Rhino from Kaziranga, re-introduction of Gangetic gharial in the  

rivers  of  Uttar  Pradesh,  Rajasthan  etc.   Re-introduction  of  an  

organism is the intentional movement of an organism into a part  

of  its  native  range  from which  it  has  disappeared  or  become

Page 54

54

extirpated  in  historic  times  as  a  result  of  human  activities  or  

natural catastrophe.   

52. Kuno, as already stated, was proved to be a historical habitat  

of  Asiatic  Lions.   After  survey  of  the  potential  status  for  re-

introduction of Asiatic lion, a final report has been submitted by  

WII, which was published on 31.1.1995  Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary  

(Madhya Pradesh) emerged as the most suitable habitat for re-

introduction of the Asiatic lion.  The Council of Ministers approved  

the project on 28.2.1996.  Between 1996 and 2001, 24 villages  

with  about  1547  families  had  been  translocated  from  the  

sanctuary  by  the  Madhya  Pradesh  Forest  Department.  

Government of Madhya Pradesh had also demarcated 1280 sq.  

kms. Kuno Wildlife Division, encompassing the Sironi,  Agra and  

Morawan  forest  ranges  around  the  sanctuary.   Government  of  

India vide its order dated 21.1.1997 ordered diversion of 3720.9  

hectares  of  forest  land,  including  18  villages  were  protected  

under  Section  2  of  the  Forest  Conservation  Act.   A  20-years  

Project envisaged by the Government of India was also approved  

by NBWL in its meeting held on 10.3.2004.  The  Government  of

Page 55

55

Madhya Pradesh took  up  a  massive re-location  of  villages and  

giving them alternative sites.  A male over 18 years of age was  

considered to be a family and each family was given 2 hectares of  

cultivate land, in addition to 500 sq. mtrs. Land was also given for  

house  construction.   Financial  assistance  to  the  tune  of  

Rs.1,00,000/-  in  the  form of  housing  material  was  also  given.  

Government of India has spent a sum of Rs.15 crores for the said  

purpose.

53. We also notice that all possible steps have been taken by the  

State of Madhya Pradesh, MoEF and the Union of India making  

Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary fit for re-introduction of Asiatic lion, with  

the approval of NWLB.

PREY DENSITY:

54. WII was requested to assess the availability of prey density  

in  the  year  2005.    With  the  assistance  of  various  staff,  17  

transects totalling 461 km were surveyed over an area of 280 sq.  

kms.  The density of catchable wild prey (chital, sambar, nilgai,  

wild pig) by lions was 13 animals/sq. km.  There were about 2500  

cattle,  left  behind  by  the  translocated  people  which  were

Page 56

56

considered to be the buffer prey for lions to tide over the likely  

problem of drought periodically killing wild ungulates.  WII noticed  

that with the implementation of the recommendations such as the  

control of poaching, grassland management, building rubble wall  

around the Division and water augmentation, a substantial  rise  

(ca. 20 animals/Sq. km) in the wild prey base for lions by the end  

of 2007.  A detailed report on the assessment of prey population  

was submitted by WII in July 2006.

55. State of Gujarat had raised serious objection with regard to  

prey density at Kuno.  Various studies have been conducted with  

regard to prey density.   Reports and studies conducted by the  

Government of Madhya Pradesh revealed that the prey density at  

Kuno  has  far  exceeded  the  estimated  prey  density  as  

recommended  by  Prof.  Chellam in  his  1993  report.   The  data  

collected regarding prey density by Mr. Fiaz A. Khudsar and Mr.  

Raman in the year 2008 shows the following picture:

Mr.  F.A.  Khudsar  year 2004

Mr.  F.  A.  Khudsar  year 2006

Mr.  Raman,  WPO  in  year 2008

WII in 2011  (Cheetah  task  force  report

All  prey  density  

17.35 24.6 49.477 N.A.

Page 57

57

excluding  feral cattle All  prey  density  including feral  cattle

- 63.97 67.406 85.91 ± 23                          

We notice that Mr. Khudsar collected his data regarding prey base  

density April-May 2004 and May 2005, that report was published  

in 2008.  However, the census carried out by Mr. Rehman (WPO)  

was in March 2008.  Census was carried out as per All India Tiger  

Census procedure.  For the said purpose, the officials and staff of  

Government of India was trained by the scientists of WII in 2008,  

from 19-21 January.  The Staff/officials of working plan was later  

trained for one week from 18-23 February, 2008 in Game Guard  

Training School,  Bandhavgarh and then census was carried out  

from 2.3.2008 to 8.3.2008 under the supervision and guidance of  

Dr. Quarnar Qureshi, Scientist WII.   We, therefore, find that the  

census carried out by Shri Raman (WPO) is latest in point of time.  

The actual comparative statement between density estimation of  

Shri Raman WPO, 2008 and Shri F.A. Khudsar is as follows:

Species Density  Recorded  by Shri F.A.  Khudsar  year 2004

Density  recorded by  Shri  F.A.  Khudsar  year 2006

Density  recorded by  Shri  Raman  WPO in  Year 2008

Density  recorded by  WII  in 2001  (Cheetah  task  force

Page 58

58

report) Chital 6.6 12.5 18.834 35.87 Sambar 0.3 0.78 1.634 N.A. Nilgai 0.77 1.61 5.603 N.A. Four  horned  Antelope

0.02 0.0 0.0 N.A.

Chinkara 3.6 6.52 1.983 N.A. Wild Pig 0.79 3.19 3.534 N.A. Feral Cattle 0.0 39.37 17.929 N.A.

In order to get latest figure of prey base, an exercise of prey  

base estimation was done in Kuno in the month of June 2012 by  

the team of expert independent scientists and various officers of  

M.P.   In June 2012, WII was requested to conduct a survey to  

assess the latest status of prey base in Kuno.   An exercise was  

carried  out  jointly  by  the  independent  members  i.e.  

scientists/experts from WII, WWF India and the personnel of Kuno  

Wildlife  Division  to  determine  the  accurate  prey  base.    The  

following was the methodology taken up by them.    

“(ii)  Prey base density estimation:  The methodology of  exercise was – Distance sampling on systematic line transect  method as developed by Buckland et  al.,  2011.   Fixed line  transects distributed across Kuno WLS, were sampled.  All the  line  transects  were  walked  three  times.   All  ungulates  and  other prey species observed along with their group size were  recorded.  The total  sampling effort was 208.5 km and 144  man-days.

Page 59

59

(iii) Analysis:-  The  density  of  prey  species  which  include  Chital,  Sambhar,  Nilgai,  Wildpig,  Chinkara,  Langur,  Peafowl  and Feral Cattle was estimated using the software DISTANCE  6.0.  The analysis of the collected data was done by Dr. Jhala  and researchers working under him. (iv) Population Density:-  As a result of exercise done for  estimation of prey-base, density estimates of Chital, Sambhar,  Nilgai, Wildpig,  Chinkara, Lungur, Peafowl and Feral  Cattle  were calculated.  Population density of prey species in Kuno  WLS was found as follows:

Species Population  Density  /  Sq.  km. ± Standard  Error

Chital 51.59 ± 8.84 Sambhar 3.59 ± 1.01 Nilgai 2.32 ± 0.59 Wild Pig 4.68 ± 1.54 Chinkara 0.99 ± 0.35 Langur 17.2 ± 4.6 Peafowl 6.44 ± 2.34 Feral  Cattle

1.83 ± 0.77

State of Madhya Pradesh has also taken up the stand that the  

prey base in Kuno is more than the existing prey base in Gir.  A  

chart  comparing  the  same  as  also  been  produced  before  us,  

which is as follows:

Page 60

60

2012 Scenario:-

Species Av. Wt. (kg)

Gir N.P. Kuno WLS

Density  per sq.  

Km.

Biomas s (kg)

Density  per sq.  

Km.

Biomass  (kg)

Chital 47 50.8 2387.60 51.59 2424.7 Sambar 134 2.00 268.00 3.59 481.06 Nilgai 125 0.58 72.50 2.32 290 Four  horned  antelope

21 0.42 8.82 - -

Chinkara 20 2.40 48.00 0.99 19.8 Wild Pig 32 0.00 0.00 4.68 149.76 Common  Langur

09 0.00 0.00 17.2 154.8

Total  including  Langur

56.2 2785 80.37 3520.12

Total  excluding  langur  &  feral cattle

63.17 3365.32

State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, maintained the stand that, in  

2012 scenario, the biomass per sq/km in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary  

excluding feral cattle and langur (3365.32 kg per sq/km) is more  

than the biomass in Gir PA (2785 kg per sq/km).   

56. State of Gujarat filed an application on 2.7.2012 on the basis  

of the above estimation of prey base and sought a direction to the  

parties to take a fresh survey on prey base.  Shri Ravi Chellam in  

his written note on 8.7.2012 made some remarks on prey-base

Page 61

61

stating that prey density estimation seems to be inadequate in  

terms  of  design,  data-collection,  protocols,  and  analytical  

methods,  when  compared  with  the  internationally  accepted  

standards.  Shri Chellam suggested that prey studies have to be  

conducted  at  least  twelve  months  covering  all  seasons  and  

habitat.

57. State  of  Gujarat  has  also  raised  various  other  objections  

stating that  the past  track record would  indicate that  State of  

Madhya  Pradesh  is  not  taking  any  effective  steps  to  control  

poaching which is also a threat if lions are translocated to Kuno.  

To meet that contention, the State of Madhya Pradesh stated that  

the Tiger Authority of India in its report – Tiger Meets, July 2011 –  

has assessed the performance of the State of Madhya Pradesh as  

outstanding, which would indicate that they had taken effective  

steps  against  poaching  of  animals  at  Kuno.   We  notice  that  

poaching  of  wild  animals  is  of  great  concern  which  calls  for  

attention  by  all  State  Governments,  so  as  to  protect  the  

endangered species from extinction.  It is a matter which has to

Page 62

62

be  dealt  with  effectively  and  poaches,  if  caught,  should  be  

brought to justice.

Cheetah to Kuno

58. We notice that while the matter was being heard, a decision  

has been made by MoEF to import African Cheetahs from Namibia  

to India and to introduce the same at Kuno.  Amicus Curiae filed  

I.A. No. 3452 of 2012.  This Court granted a stay on 8.5.2012 of  

the  decision  of  MoEF to  import  the  Cheetahs from Namibia  to  

India for introducing them to Kuno.  Serious objections have been  

raised  by  the  Amicus  Curiae Shri  P.S.  Narasimha  against  the  

introduction of foreign species at Kuno.  Learned  Amicus Curiae  

pointed out that the decision to introduce African Cheetahs into  

the same proposed habitat chosen for re-introduction of Asiatic  

lion has not been either placed before the Standing Committee of  

NBWL, nor has there been a consistent decision.  Learned Amicus  

Curiae pointed out that IUCN Guidelines on translocation clearly  

differentiated  between  introduction  and  re-introduction.  The  

guidelines critically warned against the introduction of African or  

imported species which never existed in India.  It is not a case of

Page 63

63

international  movement  of  organism  into  a  part  of  its  native  

range.   Learned  Amicus Curiae pointed that  NWAP 2002-2016,  

which  is  a  National  Policy  document,  does  not  envisage  re-

introduction  of  a  foreign  species  to  India.   The  Police  only  

mentioned  re-introduction  or  finding  an  alternative  home  for  

species like Asiatic lion.

 59. MoEF,  in  our  view,  has  not  conducted any  detailed  study  

before passing the order of introducing foreign cheetah to Kuno.  

Kuno is not a historical habitat for African cheetahs, no materials  

have been placed before us to  establish  that  fact.   A  detailed  

scientific  study  has  to  be  done  before  introducing  a  foreign  

species to India,  which has not been done in the instant case.  

NBWL, which is Statutory Board established for the purpose under  

the Wildlife Protection Act was also not consulted.   

60. We may indicate that our top priority is to protect Asiatic  

lions,  an  endangered  species  and  to  provide  a  second  home.  

Various  steps  have  been  taken  for  the  last  few  decades,  but  

nothing transpired so far.  Crores of rupees have been spent by  

the Government of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh for re-

Page 64

64

introduction of Asiatic lion to Kuno.   At this stage, in our view, the  

decision taken by MoEF for introduction of African cheetahs first  

to  Kuno  and  then  Asiatic  lion,  is  arbitrary  an  illegal  and  clear  

violation of the statutory requirements provided under the Wildlife  

Protection Act.  The order of MoEF to introduce African Cheetahs  

into  Kuno  cannot  stand  in  the  eye  of  Law  and  the  same  is  

quashed.    

61. MoEF’s decision for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir to  

Kuno is that of utmost importance so as to preserve the Asiatic  

lion,  an  endangered  species  which  cannot  be  delayed.    Re-

introduction  of  Asiatic  lion,  needless  to  say,  should  be  in  

accordance  with  the  guidelines  issued  by  IUCN  and  with  the  

active participation of  experts  in  the field  of  re-introduction of  

endangered species.  MoEF is therefore directed to take urgent  

steps for re-introduction of Asiatic lion from Gir forests to Kuno.  

MoEF has to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of senior  

officials of MoEF, Chief Wildlife Wardens of the States of Madhya  

Pradesh  and  Gujarat.   Technical  experts  should  also  be  the  

members  of  the  Committee,  which  will  include  the  Secretary

Page 65

65

General and Chief Executive Officer of WWF.  Dr. Y.S. Jhala, senior  

scientist with Wildlife Institute of India, Dr. Ravi Chellam, senior  

scientist,  Dr. A.J.T. Johnsingh, since all  of them had done lot of  

research  in  that  area  and  have  national  and  international  

exposure.    Any  other  expert  can  also  be  co-opted  as  the  

members of  the Committee.    Needless to  say,  the number of  

lions to be re-introduced would depend upon the density of prey  

base and other related factors, which the Committee will assess.

62. I.A. is allowed as mentioned above.  The order be carried out  

in its letter and spirit and within a period of 6 months from today.  

We record our deep appreciation for the assistance rendered by  

all  the  senior  counsel  and   learned  amicus  curiae Shri  P.S.  

Narasimha and also  Dr.  Ravi  Chellam who was  present  in  the  

Court throughout and made valuable suggestions with regard to  

the various environmental and scientific issues.

63. We  are  also  inclined  to  highlight  the  necessity  of  an  

exclusive  parliamentary  legislation  for  the  preservation  and  

protection of endangered species so as to carry out the recovery

Page 66

66

programmes before many of the species become extinct and to  

give the following directions:

(a) NWAP (2002-2016)  has  already  identified  species  like  the  

Great Indian Bustard, Bengal Florican, Dugong, the Manipur Brow  

Antlered Deer, over and above Asiatic Lion and Wild Buffalo as  

endangered species and hence we are, therefore, inclined to give  

a  direction  to  the  Government  of  India  and  the  MoEF  to  take  

urgent steps for the preservation of those endangered species as  

well as to initiate recovery programmes.   

(b) The  Government  of  India  and  the  MoEF  are  directed  to  

identify, as already highlighted by NWAP, all endangered species  

of flora and fauna, study their needs and survey their environs  

and habitats  to  establish  the  current  level  of  security  and the  

nature of threats.  They should also conduct periodic reviews of  

flora and fauna species status, and correlate the same with the  

IUCN Red Data List every three years.

(c) Courts and environmentalists should pay more attention for  

implementing the recovery programmes and the same be carried  

out with imagination and commitment.

Page 67

67

………………………………………..J.      (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………………………..J.      (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)

New Delhi, April 15, 2013