Lion Kings of the Supreme Court: Guardians of the Wild

“Emphasising on the concern for environmental and ecological protection, the courts have recognised the importance of sustainable development. Development which can be achieved only by way of protecting the environment and conserving the natural resources for the benefit of humanity and future generations...”

This observation was made on March 6, 2024 by the Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad In Re vs. UOI Gaurav Kumar Bansal, In Re Applicant.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has always been a fierce and vigilant protector of the ecology and the wildlife of the country. The past two decades have seen a surge in the number of cases where the apex court has been carefully trying to balance the environmental and ecological rights along with sustainable and economic development of the country.

Economic Times, on March 16, 2025, published a detailed article on the increasing demand for tiger parts in China and Vietnam. Between 2021 and 2023, poaching claimed the lives of 32 tigers across India. It is time for the government, conservationists, courts and big cat lovers to join forces and safeguard India’s tiger triumph from slipping back to the worst years of early 2000.

At this juncture, it is very pertinent to emphasize the role that our judiciary has played all these decades in upholding the rights of the citizens to a healthy environment. In many instances, the Judges have invoked their suo moto powers for the protection of wildlife and taken a firm stand for the protection of our forests, tigers and other environmental matters which required utmost attention.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Indian Supreme Court has truly acted as the guardians of the wild in the last two decades and was instrumental in saving the wildlife and forests in a developing country that has been obsessed with quicker economic development. With the new threats of emerging illegal wildlife trade, it is advisable to go back in history and see how much pain the Indian Supreme Court has taken in the last two decades in ensuring a sustainable wildcat population and guarding protected forests. Let us examine some of the landmark judgments that changed the course of history in environment and wildlife protection in India.

T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad In Re vs. UOI Gaurav Kumar Bansal, In Re Applicant 2024

Bench: BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Mehta

The Bench headed by Justice Gavai, in this important judgment, held that no tigers can be obtained from zoos for tiger safaris. The Court further ordered a stricter implementation of the National Tiger Conservation Authority’s 2016 Guidelines, which contains the aforementioned rule. It was clarified by the Court that tigers cannot be uprooted from their marked territories. The Court further reiterated:

“This Court holds that, it is now an accepted social principle that all human beings have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their well-being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are conserved and preserved in such a way that the present as well as future generations will be aware of them equally. This Court has further held that, the primary effort of the court while dealing with the environment-related issues, is to see that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws. It has been held that the courts, in a way, act as the guardian of the people's fundamental rights.”

In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union Of India & Ors.

Bench: BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra

In this landmark judgment, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court had been constituted and institutionalized as a permanent body after functioning as an ad hoc body for two decades. The CEC was originally constituted after an order of the Hon’ble Court dated May 9, 2002. The judgment further mentioned an excerpt of the MoEF notification, which states the purpose of the CEC as follows:

“The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change thereafter issued a Notification dated 05.09.2023 under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, constituting the CEC as a permanent body for "the purposes of monitoring and ensuring compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court covering the subject matter of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, and related issues arising out of the said orders and to suggest measures and recommendations generally to the State, as well as Central Government, for more effective implementation of the Act and other orders of the Court.”

S. Jagannath v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Kuldip Singh and S Saghir Ahmad

In this important judgment, the Hon’ble Court was faced with a question regarding intensive and semi-intensive prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas and the issue of prohibiting the use of wastelands and wetlands for the same. The Court banned such farming in ecologically sensitive zones, ordered the closure of illegal shrimp farms, and directed the restoration of degraded coastal areas.

The Court also directed the Central government to constitute an authority under Section 8(3) of the Environment Protection Act 1986 which would oversee the protection of the ecologically fragile coastal areas, seashore, waterfront and other coastal areas and specifically deal with the situation created by the shrimp culture industry.

Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad v. Union of India

Bench: GT Nanavati and SN Phukan

In this case, the government of Gujarat’s decision to denotify a part of the Narayan Sarovar Chinkara Sanctuary for mining was challenged. The Supreme Court struck a balance and did not quash the legislation, saying that the legislature consists of the representatives of the people and it is deemed that these representatives know the area they come from and the needs arising in the same. The Hon’ble court directed as under:

“In our opinion the proper course to be adopted in this case is to permit restricted and controlled exploitation of the mineral wealth of that area, watch its effects for a period of about five years and direct a comprehensive study of the notified and denotified areas from the environmental point of view."

The Court further directed and clarified that the interim order would continue for a year and that mining operations in a larger area could only be carried out after explicit permission from the Court. Further, directions were also given to the State government for constituting a committee of experts to study the aspects of mining, make a comprehensive study of the environmental aspects and the effects of running a cement plant setup outside the sanctuary area. The committee had to visit the area twice a year and submit its report to the government. The State government was also restrained from setting up a cement plant within 10 kms of the periphery of the sanctuary area without the Court’s permission.

TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol

In this important judgment, the Court held that mining activities would be prohibited and are impermissible within one kilometer from the boundary of the national parks and wildlife sanctuary. The Court reiterated as under:

“Insofar as the restriction on mining is concerned, we are of the considered view that it has been the consistent view of this Court that the mining activities within an area of one kilometre of the boundary of the Protected Areas will be hazardous for the wildlife."

Moti Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Bench: MB Shah and BN Agarwal

The Supreme Court clarified enforcement mechanisms in this case where the accused challenged the jurisdiction of the CBI in investigating offenses under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. The Court upheld the CBI’s authority, ruling that while the Wildlife Protection Act is a self-contained code, it does not preclude investigative agencies from intervening in cases with transnational implications. This decision fortified wildlife law enforcement and paved the way for stricter crackdowns on organized crime syndicates engaged in illegal wildlife trade.

Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) v. Nisar Khan

Bench: VN Khare CJ, SB Sinha and Dr. AR Lakshman

In this case, the respondent was a licensed bird dealer who had sought the renewal of his license, which was denied by the appellant - the Chief Forest Conservator. Against the appellant, the respondent had initially filed a writ in the High Court, which was allowed. The High Court restrained the appellants from interfering with the business of the respondent. The appellants had approached the Supreme Court, which overturned the decision, giving the following explanation:

"A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules makes it clear that although grant of licence in respect of birds in captivity is not altogether prohibited but before grant of licence the licensing authority is under a statutory obligation to ensure that thereby Inter alia the provisions of Section 9 of the Act as also the provisions of the Rules are not violated. The Act seeks to protect wild animals. Any provision contained in the Act aiming at protection of wild animals, must necessarily be strictly complied with. When hunting of the birds specified in Schedule IV is prohibited, no person can be granted a licence to deal in birds in captivity which are procured by hunting which would also include trapping. The latter is clearly prohibited. Rule 3 of the 1983 Rules clearly postulates that the licensing authority is not only required to consider the source and the manner in which the supplies for the business concerned would be obtained but also is required to bestow serious consideration as regards implications which the grant of such licence would have on the hunting or trade of the wild animals concerned. When the licensing authority arrives at a finding of fact having regard to the past transactions of a licensee that it cannot carry on any business by reason of breeding of captive birds but necessarily therefor he is to hunt, he would be justified in refusing to grant a licence in terms of the provisions of the Act. Unless the provisions of the Act and the Rules are construed strictly and in the manner as observed hereinbefore, the very purpose for which the Act has been enacted would be lost."

Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Bench: Markandey Katju and TS Thakur

A similar ruling was delivered in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, a case involving one of India’s most notorious poachers. The Court upheld the conviction of Sansar Chand for illegal trade in tiger and leopard skins, underscoring the need for severe deterrents against organized wildlife crime. The ruling also reaffirmed the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions in wildlife cases, recognizing the challenges of prosecuting wildlife offenses due to their clandestine nature. The Court reiterated the following in its judgment:

“Preservation of wildlife is important for maintaining the ecological balance in the environment and sustaining the ecological chain. It must be understood that there is interlinking in nature …. This will upset the delicate ecological balance in nature."

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja

Bench: KSP Radhakrishnan and PC Ghose

Similarly, in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court examined the traditional Tamil Nadu sport of Jallikattu, in which bulls are used in a bull-taming competition. The Court imposed a ban on the practice, ruling that it violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The decision reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to animal welfare, even when faced with arguments of cultural tradition.

Tigers and their forests have been under constant attack since times immemorial. Even if hunting was stopped and banned, the trading always remained a silent epidemic. Illegal wildlife trade, including in tiger parts, is a bane on the Indian security system and its intricacies and the complications arising therefrom are beyond normal human understanding.

The author, himself, in his two-and-half-decades’ campaign against illegal wildlife trade has appeared against poachers and their bail applications before courts in Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Rajasthan and Delhi. He has examined the cartelization of illegal wildlife trade where tiger parts’ trade coupled with drug trafficking created a deadly cocktail which also had its links with illegal arms’ trade and other allied illegal activities.

The purpose of this article is to highlight that on one hand, at the grassroots level, the forest department, National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), few politicians, courageous journalists, some individuals in NGOs, forest guards, foresters and nationalists played a giant role in saving India’s forests for its tigers.

At the same time, a giant push came from the apex court of the country which created a brilliant safety valve for the survival of the forests and its tigers. The movement to protect the tiger at the grassroots level somehow and the apex court, through its timely and effective interventions and judgments, gave an umbrella protection to forests and tigers which history will remember in times to come.

About the authors: Sudhir Mishra is the Managing Partner of Trust Legal, Advocates & Consultants. He is also a Door Tenant at No5 Barristers' Chambers, UK.

Swasti Misra is a Senior Associate at Trust Legal.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.