State Cannot Run Away From Its Duty to Protect Wildlife: Supreme Court Directs Jharkhand to Notify 31,468 Hectares as Sanctuary

“The Bogey of Tribal Displacement Is a Figment of Imagination”, In a landmark ruling that strengthens India’s environmental jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on November 13, 2025, delivered a decisive judgment in the long-running forest conservation case titled In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, directing the State of Jharkhand to notify the entire 31,468.25 hectares of the Saranda Game Sanctuary (excluding six mining-linked compartments) as a Wildlife Sanctuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Rejecting Jharkhand’s attempt to drastically reduce the sanctuary area to 24,941 hectares, the Court declared the State’s justifications—ranging from alleged tribal displacement to essential infrastructure—as "baseless, misleading, and legally untenable." The Court described the State’s conduct as "topsy-turvy" and observed that it had taken the Court “for a ride.”

The case was decided by a Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which found that the Saranda forest area meets every legal and ecological standard to qualify for sanctuary protection.

“The Saranda Forest Is a Critical Ecological Zone; It Must Be Declared a Sanctuary”: Supreme Court Recognizes Constitutional and Statutory Obligations

The Court emphasized that the State has a positive constitutional obligation under Article 48A and Article 51A(g) to protect and improve forests and wildlife. It noted that the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, especially Section 26A(1)(b), imposes a mandatory duty on the State to notify areas of ecological significance.

The Court categorically stated:

“We have no hesitation in saying that... the State cannot run away from its duty to declare the extent of 31,468.25 hectares as Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary.”

The judgment also highlighted the persistent failures of the State of Jharkhand, including contradictory affidavits and abrupt changes in its official position. Originally accepting the full extent of 31,468.25 hectares, the State later proposed 57,519 hectares, only to retract and seek notification of just 24,941 hectares, citing vague concerns over tribal displacement and mining interests.

The Court rejected this, noting:

“The bogey that on declaration of wildlife sanctuary, the habitations and rights of the tribals and traditional forest dwellers will be lost... is only a figment of imagination.”

“Wildlife Institute Report Confirms Biodiversity Richness and Elephant Corridors”: Supreme Court Affirms Scientific Basis for Full Sanctuary Declaration

Crucially, the Supreme Court relied on the 2025 Report of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), which described Saranda as:

“A biodiversity hotspot... home to the Asiatic Elephant, Four-Horned Antelope, Sloth Bear... and a vital ecological corridor linking Jharkhand and Odisha.”

The WII noted that over 70% of the forest remains intact, supporting 23 mammal species, 138 bird species, and 27 herpetofauna. It described the area as vital for the dispersal of elephants and even tigers, despite absence of a resident tiger population.

“Given its geographic relationship with the Simlipal Tiger Reserve... Saranda plays a vital role in regional conservation.”

The Court observed that this scientific evidence firmly brought the area within the statutory parameters of Section 26A(1)(b) of the Wildlife Protection Act, as a zone of faunal, floral, and geomorphological significance.

“Mines May Last 13 Years, But the Forest Took Millions to Grow”: Court Cites Shah Commission and Sustainable Mining Plan

Referring to the Justice M.B. Shah Commission Report (2013) and the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM, 2018), the Court highlighted how unregulated mining had devastated vast stretches of Saranda forest. The Shah Commission had cautioned:

“The natural forest which had taken millions of years to come to this climatic climax would be destroyed for a mine of 12 to 13 years life span.”

The MPSM had identified several compartments as “no-mining” conservation areas, yet Jharkhand excluded even these from its reduced sanctuary proposal. The Court responded:

“We see no justification in excluding the compartments which have been notified in the MPSM to be conservation area/no mining zone.”

It held that Jharkhand’s attempt to dilute the area was guided not by ecological concerns, but mining interests.

“The Rights of Tribals and Forest Dwellers Are Fully Protected by Law”: Supreme Court Dismisses Displacement Fears as Misinformation

The State's principal argument for reducing the area—that sanctuary declaration would displace tribals and disrupt public infrastructure—was flatly rejected. The Court relied on Section 24(2)(c) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, holding that tribal rights remain untouched even in a notified sanctuary.

It observed:

“None of the rights about which the State has expressed its concerns... would at all be disturbed.”

“Rather than taking such a stand before this Court, we are of the considered view that the State should have educated the tribals/forest dwellers... about the rights available to them under the FRA.”

The Court also cited Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF, reiterating that customary and habitation rights of forest communities are legally enshrined.

“Wide Publicity Must Be Given That No Rights Are Lost”: Court Orders Government to Educate Tribals About Their Forest Rights

To counter disinformation, the Court issued a specific direction:

“The State of Jharkhand shall give wide publicity to the fact that by this judgment, neither the individual rights nor the community rights of the tribals and the forest dwellers... would be adversely affected.”

The State was ordered to educate communities that the FRA permits habitation, cultivation, access to forest produce, and even basic infrastructure like schools, roads, and hospitals within sanctuary areas.

“Mining Within 1 Km of Sanctuary Boundaries Prohibited Nationwide”: Court Reiterates Goa Foundation Precedent

Referring to its earlier judgment dated April 26, 2023, the Court reiterated that mining inside sanctuaries and within one kilometre of their boundaries is prohibited across India, stating:

“Though in the case of Goa Foundation... the directions were issued in respect of Goa, we find that such directions need to be issued on Pan-India basis.”

“SAIL’s Ancillary Infrastructure Protected Under FRA”: Court Disposes IA of Steel Authority of India

An application by SAIL seeking protection of ancillary infrastructure (like dams, railway lines, and water facilities) was disposed of, with the Court holding:

“Even after the declaration... ancillary activities as sought to be carried out by the Applicant-SAIL would be continued to be permitted.”

Jharkhand Must Notify 31,468 Hectares as Sanctuary Within Three Months

Summarising its directives, the Court stated:

“We direct that the State Government shall notify the area comprising of 126 compartments as notified in 1968 notification, excluding six compartments... as a wildlife sanctuary within a period of three months.”

The six excluded compartments are KP-2, KP-10, KP-11, KP-12, KP-13 and KP-14, which were categorized as Mining Zone-I and II under the MPSM.

The judgment closes a prolonged chapter in India's forest governance saga, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s role as a vigilant guardian of India’s ecological heritage. It also sets a clear precedent that tribal rights and conservation are not in conflict—but can co-exist under the law.

As Chief Justice Gavai concluded:

“In the totality of circumstances, we find that the State has been changing its stand time and again... We see no reason as to why the entire area of 126 compartments notified under 1968 notification should not be declared as wildlife sanctuary.”

Date of Judgment: November 13, 2025