NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

NATURAL RESOURCES LAW

CASE ANALYSIS

CENTRE FOR ENVIR. LAW, WWF-1 vs. UOI

X SEMESTER

SESSION 2020-21

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

PROF. RAJIV KHARE VIPUL DOHLE

2016BALLB110
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty, Prof. Rajiv Khare, whose assignment of such a
relevant and interesting case made me work towards knowing the subject with a greater
interest and enthusiasm and moreover he guided me throughout the project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me

immensely with sources of research materials throughout the project and without whom
I couldn’t have completed it in the present way.

I would also like to thank the library staff for working long hours to facilitate us with
required material going a long way in quenching our thirst for education.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that
helped me out at every stage of my project.

-VIPUL
 NAME OF THE JUDGEMENT:

Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I

vs

Union of India & Ors

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 337 OF 1995

Date of judgement: 15 April, 2013

CITATION:

 2013 ALLMR SC 4 464

 2013 AIOL 249
 2013 AIR BOMR 3 1089
 2013 AIR SC 2317
 2013 JT 7 450
 2013 SCC 8 266
 2013 SCALE 5 710
 2013 SCC ONLINE SC 345
 2013 AD SC 11 135
 2013 FLT 3 672
 2013 MLJ 5 169

SIZE OF THE BENCH:

Division bench

NAME OF THE JUDGES:

1. J. K.S. Radhakrishnan
2. J. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
ADVOCATEs REPRESENTING MP:
Adv. Raj Pajwani
Adv. Vibha Dutta Makhija
Adv. P.K. Malhotra
Adv. T.S Deobia
Adv. P.P Malhotra

ADVOCATEs REPRESENTING GUJARAT:

Adv. Shyam Divan
Adv. K. Parameshwar
Adv. Haris Beevan
Adv. Anitha Shenoy

AMICUS CURAIE:
P.S Narasimha

BRIEF OF THE CASE:

In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide if the restoration of the Asiatic lion, an
endangered species on the verge of extinction, was necessary. The plaintiffs are asking the
Supreme Court to issue an order compelling Gujarat to build a second home for Asiatic lions
in Kuno. The defendant, the State of Gujarat, justified its refusal by claiming that there are
already Asiatic lion sanctuaries in the Gir forest and that a new one in Kuno was unnecessary.
The state of Gujarat has stated that reintroducing Asiatic lions to Kuno will cause some
tension with the local inhabitants, particularly farmers. Finally, the defendant defended its
stance by arguing that combating poaching should take precedence over the creation of
additional sanctuaries. The Supreme Court ruled that reintroducing the Asiatic lion to Kuno
was a top priority that must not be postponed if the species is to be saved from extinction.
The fact that the Asiatic lion was historically present in Kuno and that there was a high prey
ratio made the court believe that the reintroduction should take place there. As a result, the
court asked the Ministry of Environment and Forest to issue an order within six months to
reintroduce the Asiatic lion in Kuno.
STATUTE INVOLVED:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article 48A1:

“Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life. —
The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wild life of the country.”
Article 51A2:

“Fundamental duties. —It shall be the duty of every citizen of India:

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild
life, and to have compassion for living creatures”

WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972

Section 5A:

“Constitution of the National Board for Wild Life. —

(1) The Central Government shall, within three months from the date of commencement of
the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002, constitute the National Board for Wild Life
consisting of the following members…”
Section 5B:

“Standing Committee of the National Board. —

(1) The National Board may, in its discretion, 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…”
Section 5C:

“Functions of the National Board. —

(1) It shall be the duty of the National Board to promote the conservation and development of
wild life and forests by such measures as it thinks fit.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the measures referred to
therein may provide for—
(a) framing policies and advising the Central Government and the State Governments
on the ways and means of promoting wild life conservation and effectively controlling
poaching and illegal trade of wild life and its products;”
1
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f 3-1-1977 in Part IV
2
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f 3-1-1977 in Part IV
Section 12:

“Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, it shall be lawful for the Chief
Wild Life Warden, to grant a permit, by an order in writing stating the reasons therefor, to
any person, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, which shall entitle the holder of
such permit to hunt subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, any wild animal
specified in such permit, for the purpose of, —
(bb)3 scientific management.
Explanation. — For the purposes of clause (bb), the expression, scientific management
means—
(i) translocation of any wild animals to an alternative suitable habitat; or
(ii) population management of wildlife, without killing or poisoning or destroying
any wild animals;”
Section 42:

“Certificate of ownership. —
The Chief Wild Life Warden may, for the purposes of section 40, issue a certificate of
ownership in such form, as may be prescribed to any person who, in his opinion, is in lawful
possession of any wild animal…”
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980

Section 2:

“Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State,
no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the
Central Government, any order…”

MATERIAL FACTS:

1. A Population and Habitat Analysis Workshop was held in Baroda, Gujarat, in October
1993. During that discussion, a number of concerns were discussed, including the

3
Added by Amendment in 1982
 need for a second habitat for Asiatic lions. For a thorough survey, three potential sites
for the reintroduction of Asiatic lions were identified:
a) Darrah, Rajasthan
b) Sitamata, Rajasthan
c) Kuno, MP
The three sites were surveyed both in the winter and the summer.
2. The best ideal site for reintroduction in developing a free-ranging population of
Asiatic lions was found to be Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (for short "Kuno"), out of the
three sites surveyed.
3. A draft report4 was prepared that emphasised the importance of long-term financial
and personnel commitments, as well as the need for a comprehensive rehabilitation
plan, appropriate staff, and facilities.
4. The state of Madhya Pradesh then embarked on a large rehabilitation programme for
the locals living in and around Kuno in order to expedite the Asiatic lion relocation
plan involving a legal obligation to obtain prior sanction from MoEF 5 which was
taken.
5. On the 10th of March, 2004, the Government of India convened a Monitoring
Committee in Kuno to oversee the efficient implementation of the Asiatic Lion
Reintroduction Project. According to the discussions Project was to be 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.”
6. Scheme for rehabilitation was prepared for which 10 crores were already spent and
remaining 5 crores were to be used in more of rehabilitation work.
7. Meanwhile, WII had conducted a thorough analysis of the prey population in Kuno in
preparation for lion re-location.
8. The Gujarat government stated that it would not be possible for the state government
to consent to the idea to build a second habitat for Asiatic lions in Kuno, Madhya
Pradesh.

4
On behalf of WII (Wildlife Institute of India)
5
Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
 9. NBWL6, after hearing both the states and their interests, recorded that it was
unanimously recommended for translocation of lions from Gujarat to Kuno.
10. The states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, as well as the Ministry of Environment
and Forests, submitted affidavits with the Supreme Court, which subsequently issued
an order dated 22-4-2009 instructing NBWL to conduct a new investigation and
publish a report.
11. The technical debate took place during the Standing Committee meeting on
September 16, 2009.
12. The NBWL Standing Committee then convened on December 22, 2009, reviewed the
Technical Committee's findings, and recommended that lions be translocated from Gir
to an alternate habitat, now the Kuno Palpur Sanctuary, as a matter of urgency for the
protection of lions for posterity.
13. The case was brought before the State Board, which is a statutory requirement under
Wildlife (Protection) Act, that concluded that the Gir Forest posed no threat to Asiatic
lions.
14. Finally, the matter comes before the apex court of this nation to decide upon the issue
involved in these circumstances.

ISSUE INVOVLED IN THE CASE:

Whether there is a necessity of second home for Asiatic lion (panthera leo persica), an
endangered species, for its long-term survival and to protect the species from extinction.

CONTENTION:

MP-

6
National Board of Wildlife
  Because of the Gujarat government's callous attitude, this 20-year project is
hanging on fire.
 The urgent need to reintroduce Asiatic lions to Kuno has been recognised, and the
scientific world has unanimously pushed for their relocation to Kuno for long-term
survival and preservation.
 The expert technical committee, NBWL, has authorised and provided technical
approval to proceed with the project on many times, but it has been unable to gain
traction due to the state of Gujarat's inattentive and belligerent attitude.
 Necessary approval has been taken under the Wildlife (Protection) Act to make Kuno
a sanctuary. The Government of India had provided the State Government a total of
Rs 1545 lakhs, which they had used. By the year 2002-2003, 24 settlements and 1543
households had been relocated outside of Kuno, and the areas they had abandoned had
been turned into grasslands.
 The prey density in Kuno has greatly outstripped that of Gir. There is enough prey to
support a sufficient number of lions. In addition, the forest personnel, guards, and
others who will be receiving the lions, as well as those who will be caring for and
monitoring them, have received proper training.
 The number of Asiatic lions is growing in Gir, but there are potential dangers to their
survival, including man-made disasters, natural disasters, and disease outbreaks,
which might wipe out the whole population due to their tiny population base and
limited geographic distribution.

Gujarat-

 There is no need to find a new habitat for Asiatic lions because the population of
Asiatic lions in Greater Gir Forest is well protected.
 Since the State of Gujarat implemented broader conservation strategies, the
population of Asiatic lions has increased fairly, and there is currently no urgent threat
to Asiatic lions necessitating emergency actions.
 Previous lion translocations have failed, and the potential of a repeat cannot be
excluded out, given Kuno's inability to accept or protect an endangered species like
the Asiatic lion, which has been a major success at Gir.
  For a successful transfer, no appropriate translocation strategy has been created or
implemented.
 The prey-base studies are woefully insufficient, and no research or report has been
presented to this Court to demonstrate that the target of 480,000 kg of wild ungulate
biomass has been met at Kuno.
 It has been proposed that the relocation be to "an alternative suitable habitat" in
accordance with Section 12 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Kuno is not a "suitable
habitat" because of problems such as the existence of tigers, large-scale poaching,
unfavourable climatic conditions, a lack of expertise, human-animal conflict, and so
on.
 Providing or not giving lions to Kuno is a communal Indian cultural attitude in the
interest of long-term conservation of lions as members of our family, not a fight
between the states.

Amicus Curaie-

 This court is notified of the urgent need of protecting the Asiatic lion, which is listed
on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List as a
critically endangered species and has been backed by NBWL at several meetings.
 The NBWL demands respect as the highest scientific statutory authority, and its view
is worthy of recognition by the MoEF and all state governments.
 Every state in the Union of India has a responsibility to maintain and develop the
environment, as well as to conserve the country's forests and wildlife as mentioned in
the Constitution of India. The ecocentric principle and biodiversity conservatism are
also mentioned as widely recognised principles.
 Referring to the National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-16, it has been submitted that
after discovering that an alternate habitat for Asiatic lions is critical for their survival,
relocation of Asiatic lions has been prioritised.
 As determined in the Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 7 case, the
National Forest Policy and the Scheme of 2009, as well as the NWAP, 2002-2016,
and the plans, have legislative effect and can be enforced through courts.

7
2011 7 SCC 338
OPINION OF THE JUDGES:

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The court first dealt with the legal framework which will later help them to decide on the
issue before them.

 Schedule VII List III Entry 17-B covers the topic "Protection of wild animals and
birds." The Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972 was approved by Parliament to provide for
the protection of wild animals and birds in order to ensure the country's ecological
and environmental security.
 Article 48-A was placed in Part IV by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment)
Act, 1976, and Article 51-A was introduced in Part IV-A by the abovementioned
amendment with effect from 3-1-1977.
 The National Board for Wildlife Legislation (NBWL) is the highest scientific
organisation in the country, with the mission of developing policies and advising the
federal and state governments on how to promote wildlife conservation, as well as
reviewing and recommending improvements to the country's wildlife conservation
efforts. The federal and state governments cannot dismiss its views without providing
compelling and acceptable reasons. The legislature, in its wisdom, has entrusted
NBWL with the responsibility of wildlife and forest protection and development.
 Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan8
“all efforts must be made to implement the spirit and provisions of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972; the provisions of which are salutary and are necessary to be
implemented to maintain ecological chain and balance.”
 For the first time in International Law, the Conventions on Biological Diversity,
agreed in 1962 at the Rio Summit, recognised that biological diversity conservation as
“a common concern of humankind” and an intrinsic component of the development
process. The Stockholm Declaration, the United States Declaration, and the
Conventions on Human Environment, of which India is a signatory to, lay the
groundwork for sustainable development and urged nations to work together to
conserve the environment.
 The Government of India has laid down many policies and action plans to achieve the
objectives of many conventions, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, as
8
2010 10 SCC 604v
 well as proper implementation of IUCN, Cites, and the provisions of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, Bio-diversity Act in light of Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of
Constitution. Following on the principle as laid in the Lafarge case, it is in
consonance that the NWAP (2002-2016) must be interpreted in conjunction with the
Wildlife (Protection) Act.

ANTHROPOCENTRIC vs. ECOCENTRIC

 To begin this discussion, a statement made by this court should be looked into:
“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
ecocentric and not anthropocentric.”
 Various notable environmentalists have claimed that sustainable development plainly
presupposes an anthropocentric bias, with little regard for the rights of other species
that dwell on our planet. Anthropocentrism is constantly focused on human interests,
believing that non-humans have only instrumental value to humans; in other words,
people come first, and human duties to non-humans are predicated on human benefits.
 Ecocentrism is based on the belief that people are a part of nature and that non-
humans have inherent value. To put it another way, human interests do not always
take primacy, and people have duties to non-humans that are unrelated to human
interests. Ecocentrism is therefore life-centered and nature-centered, with both people
and non-humans included in nature.
 Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards not just human rights but also
imposes a responsibility on human beings to safeguard and maintain a species from
extinction. Environmental conservation and protection are inextricably linked to the
right to life.
 M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath9 enunciated Public trust theory.
“…certain common properties such as rivers, seashores, forests and the air are held
by the Government in 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.”
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF WILD ANIMALS

9
1997 1 SCC 388
  In the forest, no state, organisation, or individual may claim ownership or custody of
wild animals. Under Section 2(36) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, a "wild
animal" is defined as any animal listed in Schedules I to IV and that are found in the
wild. Section 2(37) defines “wildlife” as any animal, bees, butterflies, crustaceans,
fish, and moths, as well as terrestrial flora that is a component of any environment.
Section 9 makes it illegal to hunt wild animals.
 Section 42 deals with the issuance of certificates and does not provide ownership of
wild animals to any one state or group of states. Animals in the wild are national
assets that no state may claim ownership of, and it is the responsibility of the state to
safeguard and conserve wildlife in order to ensure the country's ecological and
environmental security.

After a considerable amount of information before it, the court opined:

“Approach made by SWBL and the State of Gujarat is an anthropocentric approach, not
ecocentric though the State of Gujarat can be justifiably proud of the fact that it has
preserved an endangered species from 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
civilisation”, 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 ecocentric. 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 species is found to be a critically endangered one
and the necessity of a second home has been keenly felt.”
Also, the court expressed its view after taking into consideration the reports of NBWL that
NBWL's mission is to promote wildlife conservation and development in order to ensure the
country's ecological and environmental security. As a consequence, numerous judgments
made by NBWL that Asiatic lions need a second habitat to preserve them from extinction due
to disasters like as epidemics, major forest fires, and other factors that might lead to
extinction are warranted. Therefore, Court as a member of the jurisdiction, will not be
justified in taking a position that differs from NBWL's.

HISTORICAL HABITAT- REINTRODUCTION

 Ex situ conservation refers to the reintroduction of an animal or plant back into its
natural environment after it has gone extinct. Certain reintroduction programmes in
 India have been successful, such as Gangetic gharial reintroduction in the rivers of
Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, and so on.
 The purposeful migration of an organism into a region of its native range from which
it has disappeared or become extirpated in the past as a result of human actions or
natural disaster is known as re-introduction.
 Kuno has been proven to be a historical habitat of Asiatic lions, as previously
mentioned. WII has presented a final report after surveying the prospective status for
Asiatic lion reintroduction, with Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh)
emerging as the most appropriate site for reintroduction.

PREY DENSITY

 WII was asked to undertake a survey in Kuno in June 2012 to examine the current
state of the prey base. To assess the precise prey base, independent members,
including scientists/experts from WII, WWF India, and Kuno Wildlife Division
officials, collaborated on an exercise.
 Conclusion was made as follows:
“State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, maintained the stand that, in 2012 scenario, the
biomass per square kilometre in Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary excluding feral cattle and
langur (3365.32 kg per square kilometre) is more than the biomass in Gir PA (2785
kg per square kilometre).”
CHEETAH TO KUNO

 Ministry of Environment and Forestry did not perform a thorough investigation before
issuing the order to introduce imported cheetahs to Kuno. No documents have been
shown to us to prove that Kuno is not a historical habitat for African cheetahs. Before
bringing a foreign species to India, a thorough scientific examination must be
conducted, which has not been done in this case. The NBWL, a statutory board
formed for this purpose under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, was likewise left out of
the process.
 To deal with this issue, the court stayed the order passed by MoEF to introduce
African Cheetahs.
“…the decision taken by MoEF for introduction of African cheetahs first to Kuno and
then Asiatic lion, is arbitrary and 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 the law and the same
is quashed.”
CONCRETE JUDGEMENT:

The decision by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to reintroduce Asiatic lions from
Gir to Kuno is critical in order to save the Asiatic lion, an endangered species that cannot be
postponed. Without a doubt, the reintroduction of the Asiatic lion should be done in
accordance with the IUCN Guidelines and with the active cooperation of specialists in the
field of endangered species reintroduction. Therefore, the court has ordered MoEF as under:

“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 and to decide
on number of lions to be reintroduced which would depend upon the density of prey base and
other related factors, which the Committee will assess.”
The order to be carried out in its letter and spirit and within a period of 6 months from the day
of the judgement.

OBITER

While concluding the present case, the court also showed its inclination towards the necessity
of an exclusive parliamentary legislation for the preservation and protection of endangered
species so as to carry out the recovery programmes before many of the species become
extinct.

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 the court has inclined towards giving 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.

Also, “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.”

CONCLUSION:
The urgent need to reintroduce Asiatic lions to Kuno has been recognised, and the scientific
world has unanimously pushed for their relocation to Kuno for long-term survival and
preservation. The expert technical committee, NBWL, has authorised and provided technical
approval to proceed with the project on many times, but it has been unable to gain traction
due to the state of Gujarat's inattentive and belligerent attitude.

Necessary approval has been taken under the Wildlife (Protection) Act to make Kuno a
sanctuary. The Government of India had provided the State Government a total of Rs 1545
lakhs, which they had used. By the year 2002-2003, 24 settlements and 1543 households had
been relocated outside of Kuno, and the areas they had abandoned had been turned into
grasslands. The prey density in Kuno has greatly outstripped that of Gir. There is enough
prey to support a sufficient number of lions. In addition, the forest personnel, guards, and
others who will be receiving the lions, as well as those who will be caring for and monitoring
them, have received proper training. The number of Asiatic lions is growing in Gir, but there
are potential dangers to their survival, including man-made disasters, natural disasters, and
disease outbreaks, which might wipe out the whole population due to their tiny population
base and limited geographic distribution.

AT PRESENT

It has been three decades since Kuno Palpur was identified as the site for the relocation of
Asiatic lions, from their last habitat in Gujarat, to protect them from extinction. This
relocation project was supposed to have been completed by 2020 but it still lacks the
motive on part of Gujarat.