Filmmaking In Wildlife Sanctuaries Must Be Linked To Conservation Goals – Not Entertainment – Kerala HC Declares Govt Order Legally Unsustainable

Commercial Film-making, Untethered to Wildlife Protection, Has No Legal Sanction in Sanctuaries – Kerala High Court led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji delivered a landmark verdict, ruling that commercial film and TV serial shooting in protected forest areas such as National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Tiger Reserves in Kerala is legally impermissible under the current statutory framework.

The Court declared that the Government Order dated 30 March 2013, which had been used to justify such permissions, “does not have the force of law”, and directed the State to issue appropriate instructions to forest officers within four weeks.

The case arose from a petition filed by Angels Nair, an animal rights activist and Secretary of Animal Legal Force Integration, who had originally challenged the grant of permission for the shooting of the Malayalam commercial film “Unda” in a forest area of Kasaragod in 2019.

The petition alleged grave environmental damage due to forest clearance, soil filling, and vehicular movement to facilitate the film shoot. A Single Judge had earlier acknowledged the violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and directed a central inquiry, but refrained from further directions in the subsequent PIL.

In the present appeal, the Division Bench treated the matter as a Public Interest Litigation to address a wider legal question:

“Can the State permit commercial film and serial shooting in protected areas merely on the basis of a Government Order, in the absence of a specific statutory framework under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972?”

“The 2013 Government Order Has No Legal Force Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act”

The 2013 G.O. prescribed fee structures for film shooting, but the Court held that this cannot be equated to legal authority to permit such activities:

“The Government Order dated 30 March 2013 does not refer to any statutory basis or policy decision authorising such commercial activity in protected areas.” [Para 10]

Despite multiple opportunities, the State could not present any policy document, environmental clearance, or rule to support its action.

“The counter affidavit filed by the State does not refer to the statutory scheme of the Act of 1972, nor has the State Government filed any policy or document supporting commercial film shooting in protected areas.” [Para 11]

“Section 28 Permits Film-making Only if Ancillary to Wildlife Study, Research, or Tourism”

The Court conducted a close reading of Section 28 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which governs permissions to enter wildlife sanctuaries.

Clause (b) of Section 28 (post-2022 amendment) allows: “Photography and film-making without making any change in the habitat or causing any adverse impact to the habitat or wild life.”

But the Court clarified: “Film-making under Section 28 is not a stand-alone activity but is linked to other permitted objects, such as research, study, or regulated tourism.” [Para 17]

“There is no legislative intent to interpret ‘film-making’ in Section 28 widely. On the contrary, the statutory scheme and wider constitutional principles indicate that the phrase needs to be read narrowly.” [Para 16]

“Protected Forests Are Not Stages for Entertainment – They Are Public Trust Assets”

The Court firmly applied the Doctrine of Public Trust, constitutional duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g), and environmental jurisprudence.

“Forests are public resources held in trust by the State... Permissions aimed solely at revenue generation violate the Public Trust Doctrine and the constitutional mandate.” [Para 21]

Rejecting the State’s revenue-centric view, the Court emphasised: “Permissions in protected areas cannot be granted merely because they generate income. Conservation is the priority, not entertainment.” [Para 20]

“Without a Valid Statutory or Policy Framework, No Permission Can Be Granted”

The Bench held that in the absence of a specific policy or rule, permissions based on administrative convenience or fee-based orders are ultra vires:

“The stand of the Respondent – State of permitting commercial film shooting and television serials within the protected areas only on the basis of the Government Order dated 30 March 2013 is not valid.” [Para 22]

The Court stopped short of ruling on the legality of future legislation but made its current position unequivocal:

“What will be the legal effect of such a policy or statutory provision if enacted in future is kept open.” [Para 24]

“It is declared that the Government Order dated 30 March 2013 issued by the State of Kerala does not have the force of law to permit commercial film-making and commercial television serials in the Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks and Tiger Reserves.” [Para 23]

“The State Government will issue appropriate follow-up instructions to the officers of the Forest Department accordingly within four weeks.” [Para 23]

Other prayers in the writ petition were deemed unnecessary as action had already been initiated, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

A Victory for Environmental Rule of Law

This judgment is a notable reaffirmation of the supremacy of statutory environmental protections over executive or revenue-driven decision-making. The Kerala High Court has set a precedent that wildlife sanctuaries cannot be treated as shooting locations unless there is explicit legislative backing, and even then, only within strict ecological parameters.

As the Court cautioned: “The State has to consider not only the statutory provision, but also the settled principles of environmental governance.” [Para 21]

Date of Decision: 28 July 2025