The Supreme Court of India has called for a balanced approach in the debate over private bus operations within Jim Corbett National Park, emphasizing the importance of considering local residents alongside conservation efforts. The case highlights tensions between ecological preservation and human access, with the court suggesting state-run bus services as an alternative to private operators.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Nov 27th) emphasized the need for a “balanced view” in the ongoing debate over the operation of private buses within the core area of Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand.
A bench comprising Justices B. R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan highlighted that while conservation is critical, the needs of local residents must also be considered.
“You (CEC) have to take a very balanced view. You can’t think only about the animals. You also have to think a bit about human beings also,”
the bench remarked while hearing a petition challenging the park’s decision to allow private buses on the Pakhro-Moreghatti-Kalagarh-Ramnagar Forest road.
Background of the Case
The controversy stems from a December 23, 2020, directive by the Corbett Tiger Reserve allowing private buses to ply within its core area. The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of this order on February 18, 2021, amid concerns raised by conservationists.
Arguments Presented
- Central Empowered Committee (CEC): The CEC submitted its report recommending against the operation of private buses within the park’s core zone.
- State of Uttarakhand: The state argued that an 18-seater bus has been plying this route since 1986 for the convenience of locals. Of the 53 km road, 45 km lies in the buffer zone and 8 km in the core area.
- Amicus Curiae K. Parameshwar: The amicus clarified that objections were specifically aimed at commercial private operators, not the road itself.
“Just have a practical view, Mr. Parameshwar. You can have 24-seater canters going into the core areas and not an 18-seater bus for the people who are residing there?”
the bench queried.
SC’s Suggestions and Observations
The court proposed that instead of private buses, a state-run bus service could be introduced to cater to the locals. “If the objection pertains to private operators, we can direct a state-run bus on this route,” the bench suggested.
The court also acknowledged that villages within the park require access and reiterated the importance of balancing ecological concerns with human needs.
Petitioner’s Allegations
The petitioner, represented by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, alleged that forest officials allowed private buses in the core area for wrongful commercial gains. The plea invoked Section 38(O) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, arguing that the move violated mandates against ecologically unsustainable activities in tiger reserves without approval from the National Board for Wildlife and the National Tiger Conservation Authority.
The bench directed the distribution of the CEC report to state and central lawyers, granting them three weeks to respond. The matter will be heard again after the responses are filed.
A Need for Balance
In July, the apex court reiterated the importance of balancing the rights of local communities with wildlife conservation. The case underscores the complex dynamics of ensuring both ecological preservation and human accessibility in one of India’s most vital tiger reserves.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE