In a historic judgment, the Bombay High Court reprimanded the Goa government for ignoring the recommendations made by the National Tiger Conservation Authority. The court stated, “The tiger is a unique animal which plays a pivotal role in the health and diversity of an ecosystem. It is a top predator, at the apex of the food chain.”
—
ON July 24, 2023 the High Court of Bombay at Goa delivered a judgment directing the Goa government to notify a tiger reserve in the four wildlife sanctuaries of the state within three months.
A division Bench presided by Justices Mahesh Sonak and Bharat Deshpande also directed the state government to prepare and submit a comprehensive tiger conservation plan to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) within six months.
The judgment opens with a quote from the Mahabharata: “If there is no forest, then the tiger gets killed; if there is no tiger then the forest gets destroyed; hence the tiger protects the forest and the forest guards the tiger.”
The public interest litigation was filed by Goa Foundation, a local NGO, seeking the court to direct the state government to notify tiger reserves of the state as directed by the NTCA in 2016.
Background to what led to the NTCA report
Tiger populations have long thrived in the forests of Sattari, Bicholim, Sanguem and Quepem talukas, a knowledge ingrained in the local communities residing along the eastern boundaries of Goa.
Names like Vagheri, meaning ‘abode of the tigers’, in Sattari, highlight the deep-rooted connection between villagers and these majestic creatures. In these areas, nights echoed with the distant roars of tigers, further solidifying their presence in the collective consciousness.
This accolade makes Goa the second-best habitat for tigers in India after the Sundarbans, and places it at rank eighth globally.
The strong presence of tigers led the Goa government to proclaim the forests in Sattari taluka in North Goa district as the Mhadei wildlife sanctuary and the forests of Sanguem–Quepem in the south of Goa as the Netravali wildlife sanctuary, in 1999–2000, when Goa was under President’s rule.
Also read: Loss of Habitat: Leopards in Kashmir and Tigers in Vidarbha caught in human-wildlife conflict
This strategic move resulted in the creation of a contiguous expanse of protected areas (PA) that aligned with the already established Mollem wildlife sanctuary and Cotigao wildlife sanctuary, which had been designated as protected areas since 1967.
The responsibility to declare Mhadei and Netravali as wildlife sanctuaries was taken by lieutenant general J.F.R. Jacob, the then governor of Goa and Richard D’Souza, Goa’s conservator of forests, who had been posted to the state after a notable tenure in the Andaman and Nicobar islands.
The Mhadei wildlife sanctuary proposal states: “Sattari has 78 percent forest cover of North Goa and, after Sanguem, it is the taluka with the largest area under forest in North Goa. Sosogad is the tallest mountain in Goa and the second highest is Catlanchi Mauli. The third highest is Vagheri (abode of the tigers). These mountain ranges act as a corridor for animal movement from Karnataka into Maharashtra and vice versa.”
The proposal for Netravali wildlife sanctuary states: “At Bati, there is a place called Vagpedi (the cave of the tiger). Even today the villagers say that tigers visit this place… At the same panchayat, a waterhole called Kajretol is visited by tigers according to the villagers. Tiger sightings have been reported from Vichundra and at Ghato Dongor at Pata Netroli, where a couple of cattle were killed a year ago.”
Thus, tiger presence is not merely confined to local folklore.
The 1997 publication, A Framework for Identifying High Priority Areas and Actions for Conservation of Tigers in the Wild, released by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), classifies the region as a level-one tiger conservation unit with 55 points.
This accolade makes Goa the second-best habitat for tigers in India after the Sundarbans, and places it at rank eighth globally.
Despite the 1999 notifications designating Mhadei and Netravali as wildlife sanctuaries, challenges persisted.
Local politicians, displeased with the sanctuary status, encouraged encroachments and the cultivation of non-native species like cashew.
Reports of tigers in Goa
In 2011, the then Union environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, wrote to the then chief minister of Goa, Digamber Kamat, urging him to elevate the sanctuaries to tiger reserve status.
This appeal was based on a study conducted in 2008 by the Wildlife Institute of India which underscored the potential of the contiguous forests of Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra as prime tiger habitats.
Subsequently, a report titled Status of Tigers in India, 2014, based on a nationwide tiger population census conducted by the NTCA, revealed the presence of five tigers in Goa’s forests.
The NTCA was given statutory status by amending The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in 2006.
Vide its letter dated March 31, 2016, the NTCA recommended to the Goa government to notify a tiger reserve for Goa in the Mhadei–Cotigao wildlife sanctuary complex.
Subsequently, a report titled Status of Tigers in India, 2014, based on a nationwide tiger population census conducted by the NTCA, revealed the presence of five tigers in Goa’s forests.
This recommendation carried the weight of a directive, for it was issued under Section 38(V) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, which requires the state to act (while making a tiger conservation plan) keeping in consideration the livelihood concerns of the local people, livestock, Scheduled Tribes, etc.
Almost immediately after the letter, the state government commenced the process of identifying the area to be notified as a tiger reserve.
In order to evaluate the forest habitat, connectivity and wildlife status, experts like Dr A.J.T. Johnsingh, former director of the Wildlife Institute of India and his team were engaged.
Extensive field visits were conducted, involving a significant number of Goa’s forest officers.
They covered all the protected areas of Goa— some parts on foot and others by vehicles. In December 2018, the proposed tiger reserve plan and maps encompassing road networks and human habitation zones were submitted to the government.
The accompanying note stated that of the 745.18 sq. km of protected area to be declared as a tiger reserve, 538.73 sq. km was proposed as the core zone and 166.85 sq. km as the buffer zone.
The note further clarified that major villages and human habitations in the region were largely excluded from the tiger reserve boundaries, and have been classified within the buffer zone.
It is at this juncture that the movement of the proposal came to a grinding halt at the level of the state wildlife advisory board chaired by the chief minister.
The minutes of the meeting record the chief minister asking for a study on the implications of declaring a tiger reserve on the communities residing in the fringe areas, before forwarding the proposal to the NTCA.
The study never materialised, causing the tiger reserve proposal to be shelved altogether.
Revival of the report
A stark reminder of the urgency to notify the tiger reserve came in the first week of January 2020, when news broke of the death of four tigers in the Mhadei wildlife sanctuary.
The tigers— a mother and three cubs— were reportedly deliberately poisoned, following the death of some of the villagers’ cattle.
Responding promptly to the death of the tigers, the NTCA sent a team within days of the incident to investigate the matter. Its report of January 2020 exposed disconcerting details about the government’s lacklustre protection efforts for the sanctuaries.
The NTCA noted the absence of adequate protection mechanisms, the lack of management plans, rudimentary and inadequate wireless communication, poorly connected anti-poaching camps and a cumbersome compensation process that disadvantaged illiterate villagers.
Also read: Ken-Betwa Link will Destroy Panna Tiger Sanctuary
Furthermore, prey and smaller wildlife were insufficient as per the requirement of a wildlife sanctuary.
The report concluded with a stark warning about the poor state of Goa’s wildlife sanctuaries.
“If the legal status of Goa’s wildlife sanctuaries is not upgraded to that of a tiger reserve and a strong protection regime put in place, the state may become a death trap for tigers,” the report stated.
This report and the grim reality on the ground galvanised the Goa Foundation to file a PIL whose purpose was to secure the declaration of Goa’s wildlife sanctuaries as tiger reserves, in accordance with the NTCA’s recommendation and the plan formulated by the forest department.
This legal action underscored the urgency of the situation and the imperative to safeguard Goa’s rich natural heritage.
It must be pointed out that when an area is notified as a tiger reserve, a state can draw from the funds provided under Project Tiger, a flagship programme of the government of India, launched in 1973 by the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, to shore up the fast dwindling tiger population in the country.
It is at this juncture that the movement of the proposal came to a grinding halt at the level of the state wildlife advisory board chaired by the chief minister. The minutes of the meeting record the chief minister asking for a study on the implications of declaring a tiger reserve on the communities residing in the fringe areas, before forwarding the proposal to the NTCA.
At present, there are 53 tiger reserves in the country, spread over 18 states. The vast funds disbursed cover 100 percent of a host of non-recurring expenditures including compensation for death of domestic animals by wildlife, purchase of vehicles, wireless communications, watchtowers, resettlement packages for villagers to be relocated from the core tiger zone, research and training programmes for forest guards and census surveys.
The funds also cover 50 percent of the recurring expenditure. It is, therefore, highly advantageous for any state to notify a tiger reserve.
Why is the government of Goa opposing the PIL?
The government has raised the following issues which shed light on the government’s perspective on wildlife protection:
Interpretation of Section 38(V)(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act
The state government contended that Section 38(V)(1) of the Act is of directory nature and is not explicitly mandatory.
This interpretation implies that the government can exercise its discretion to overlook this provision, deeming the communication from the NTCA as suggestions rather than binding directives.
The government argued that thorough studies and surveys should precede the designation of an area as a tiger reserve.
Questioning the validity of the NTCA communications
Another objection revolved around the legitimacy of NTCA communications, including the specific letter dated March 31, 2016.
The state government contended that these communications lacked substantial support in the form of a formal NTCA resolution, raising doubts about their authority and binding nature.
Timing and preconditions for declaration of a tiger reserve
While expressing a degree of openness to the notion of a tiger reserve, the government firmly believed that the prevailing circumstances were not conducive for an immediate declaration. It asserted that certain prerequisites must be addressed before notifying a tiger reserve.
According to the government, the prerequisites include ensuring the settlement of rights for forest dwellers within the sanctuary and finalising the notifications with respect to the wildlife sanctuary under Section 26A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
Currently, these areas are in the nature of proposals under Section 18(1) of the Wild Life Act and the state government states that moving towards tiger reserve notification without these finalised declarations would be legally inappropriate.
Absence of fixed time-frame and penalties for non-compliance
The state government underscored that the Wild Life (Protection) Act lacks a specific timeframe for notifying a tiger reserve following the NTCA recommendations.
There are no punitive measures prescribed for non-compliance, the state government submitted.
Through this submission, the government tried to highlight the discretionary nature of the Act.
Equitable protection and special status for tigers
One of the prominent contentions of the state government was that tigers did not require special protection, and the government advocated for equal safeguarding for all wildlife species.
The state government contended that these communications lacked substantial support in the form of a formal NTCA resolution, raising doubts about their authority and binding nature.
They asserted that the state was already effectively preserving wildlife sanctuaries, suggesting that singling out tigers might be disproportionate.
High court’s decision
To the argument made by the government that tigers do not require special protection, the court acknowledged the unique and pivotal role of tigers in the ecosystem.
“The tiger is a unique animal which plays a pivotal role in the health and diversity of an ecosystem. It is a top predator at the apex of the food chain. Therefore, the presence of tigers in the forest is an indicator of the well-being of the ecosystem. Protection of tigers in forests protects the habitats of several other species.
“Indirect benefits of preserving a tiger include several ecosystem services like protection of rivers and other water sources, prevention of soil erosion and improvement of ecological services like pollination, water table retention, etc.
“Conversely, the absence of this top predator indicates that its ecosystem is not sufficiently protected. For this reason tigers are variously described as keystone species, flagship species, indicator species or umbrella species,” the judgment stated.
The judgment chastised the government for its claim of duly protecting all wildlife species and remarked “while the state’s claim to steer clear of the Orwellian manner of treating some animals more equally than others is appreciated, this should not be achieved by collectively reducing the level of protection for all wild animals as the record— the Dr Johnsingh report and the NTCA expert committee report— unfortunately shows.”
The judgment also dealt extensively with the fact that the wildlife sanctuaries of Goa are a vital corridor linking the tiger reserves of Karnataka (Kali and Bhimgad) and then on to the forested areas of Maharashtra.
Tiger corridors, the court noted, “are vital for the survival of the tiger, for without corridors, a tiger habitat can become fragmented and tiger populations isolated, leaving the tiger vulnerable to local extinction. Free movement of tigers also ensures the species genetic health, by preventing inbreeding and overcrowding.”
On the state’s submission that the NTCA letter was only recommendatory and not mandatory, the court observed that as the Wild Life (Protection) Act neither defines the word “recommendation” nor prescribes any particular format in which the NTCA could make its recommendation, it would consider the natural meaning of the expression, bearing in mind the context of its setting in the statutory scheme.
Taking into account various dictionary meanings of the word “recommend”, which basically means “to suggest something that is suitable or good for a particular purpose”, the court noted that the NTCA had repeatedly exhorted the state government to notify a tiger reserve expeditiously in order to arrest the further degradation of the tiger and its habitat.
The strong observation that delay in notifying might as well become a death trap for the tigers was more than adequate proof that the letter of March 31, 2016 was not just a recommendation, but in fact a direction, the court averred.
The strong observation that delay in notifying might as well become a death trap for the tigers was more than adequate proof that the letter of March 31, 2016 was not just a recommendation, but in fact a direction, the court averred.
Hence, the state was obliged to notify Mhadei as a tiger reserve in Goa, the court said.
Thus, the expression “shall” in Section 38 (V)(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act had to be read as mandatory.
The court further observed that if each state government is given the absolute discretion whether or not to notify a tiger reserve, notwithstanding the recommendation of the NTCA which is a high-powered body, chaired by the Union minister for environment and having members of Parliament and other high ranking officers of the government as its members, the protection of the tiger, our national animal and its habitat, would be rendered a casualty and this would spell doom for the cause of tiger protection.
It further noted: “This court cannot blink at the reality that often, at the state level, regional, parochial, anthropomorphic and at times, even narrow political considerations prevail over the more significant national interests involved in conserving and protecting the tiger and its habitat.”
Regarding the perceived lack of consequences for disregarding the NTCA recommendations, the court observed that in none of the provisions pertaining to the protection of the tiger (Chapter IV-B of the Wild Life Protection Act), are any consequences prescribed, should the state government embark upon the misadventure of defying the directions of the NTCA.
The court did not agree with the state’s submissions that the NTCA communications were not backed by resolutions of the NTCA, as there was neither any foundation laid for this argument nor was it canvassed by the forest department in the returns it had filed in the PIL.
The court examined the submissions by the state that declaring a tiger reserve without first settling the rights and claims of the forest dwellers would not only be premature but would “adversely affect the larger public interest and further aggravate man–tiger conflict.”
However, the court rejected the submission by observing that there is no legal bar or impediment to notify a protected area as a tiger reserve even when the settlement of rights is not completed.
The court also observed that in 1997, the Supreme Court had directed all state governments who had failed to settle the rights and claims of forest dwellers within the statutorily prescribed period of two years (Goa being among them), to compulsorily complete the process within one year.
The state of Goa had not only not complied with the law as well as the Supreme Court’s directions, but it “now puts forth its own lapses as an excuse for not notifying these areas as a tiger reserve.”
The judgment cited a slew of Supreme Court judgments in which the Supreme Court had categorically asserted that the rapid deterioration of the ecology was due to human interference, resulting in the disappearance of several wild animal species via poaching, wildlife trade, increased human pressure, climate change and epidemics.
The state of Goa had not only not complied with the law as well as the Supreme Court’s directions, but it “now puts forth its own lapses as an excuse for not notifying these areas as a tiger reserve.”
The Supreme Court had urged that these challenges must be addressed on a war footing and that our approach must be ecocentric and not anthropocentric.
“Human interest does not take automatic precedence and humans have obligations to non-humans, independent of human interest,” the Supreme Court had opined in several judgments.
In this context, the high court also examined whether large sections of the population would need to be relocated following the notification of the tiger reserve in Goa.
Notably, there was no counter from the government disputing the facts laid down in the tiger reserve proposal prepared by the forest department in 2018 about human habitations being left out of the proposed tiger reserve.
Hence, the court states: “There seems to be some misinterpretation that the moment the area is notified as a tiger reserve, there would be large-scale displacement of populations and the rights of the forest dwellers would be drastically affected. This needs to be corrected.
“The material on record shows that the Goa forest department officials have already excluded the high habitation areas from the proposed tiger reserve when preparing the plan. Besides, several provisions of the Wild Life Act and the NTCA guidelines stress the coexistence of humans with wildlife.
“Therefore, the Goa forest department must initiate a campaign to assure the scheduled tribes or other forest dwellers that their interests will not be adversely affected and their concerns will be suitably addressed,” the court stated.
Additional mandates include establishing anti-poaching camps within six months, preventing further encroachments within the wildlife sanctuaries of Goa and expediting the determination of rights and claims of Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers, ideally within one year.
While the court was emphatic in its judgment that the urgency of tiger conservation and ecosystem preservation is mandated both by law and by national interest, it also firmly reiterated the fact that the Project Tiger guidelines do address the livelihood, development, social and cultural concerns of the local communities inhabiting these areas.
Hence it is important that the forest department disseminates information about these guidelines and policies instead of encouraging the impression that the rights of the forest dwellers would be adversely affected by the setting up of a tiger reserve in Goa.
