The Karnataka High Court refused immediate ban on tiger safaris but sought response on plea challenging activities in critical habitats Bench led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru directed State to file affidavit detailing zones safari locations and conservation compliance
The Karnataka High Court refused to order an immediate ban on tiger safaris across the State. At the same time, it directed the State government to file a reply to a plea seeking a permanent ban on tiger safaris in critical tiger habitats, on the ground that such activities violate established conservation norms.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice (CJ) Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha sought a detailed affidavit clarifying the demarcation of core, buffer, and tourism zones, the precise locations where safaris are being run, and maps indicating these zones.
The case stems from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Mysuru resident V Ravi Kumar, seeking a ban on tiger safaris. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, which lays down principles for forest protection and wildlife management in India.
The dispute relates to tiger reserves including Bandipur and Nagarhole. Safari operations had been temporarily stopped there after a spate of fatal human–wildlife conflict incidents reported in October–November 2025. Subsequently, authorities allowed a phased restart of safaris at 50% capacity, based on recommendations from a technical committee.
Earlier, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the ongoing safari operations breach conservation standards.
He argued,
“Safaris are being conducted in core (critical) tiger habitats, where such activities are prohibited. The decision to resume safaris was influenced by political and commercial pressures. Continued safari operations could worsen human-animal conflicts,”
However, the Court questioned the factual foundation of these allegations, remarking that critical tiger habitat is not always the same as the core zone, and that the classification must be properly verified.
The Court observed that tiger reserves are generally divided into core, buffer, and tourism zones, with different categories of permitted activities in each. It also noted that safaris are usually permitted only in buffer or designated tourism zones, and not in strictly protected core areas.
The Bench further recorded that guidelines issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) require that safaris be conducted on non-forest or degraded land within buffer zones, while avoiding critical habitats and tiger corridors.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE