Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I�v.�Union of India (UOI) and Ors.�(2013) 8 SCC 234

To decide the necessity of a second home for Asiatic Lion, an endangered species, for its long term survival and to protect the species from extinction as issue rooted on eco-centrism.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

• "Protection of wild animals and birds" falls under List III, Entry 17B of Seventh Schedule.
• The Parliament passed The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to provide for the protection of wild animals and birds with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country.
• The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Article 48A in Part IV of the Constitution placing responsibility on the State "to endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country."
• Article 51A was also introduced in Part IVA by the above-mentioned amendment stating that "it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures".
• Section 12(bb) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1982 authorises the Chief Wild Life Warden to grant a special permit for the purpose of scientific management which would include translocation of any wild animal to an alternative suitable habitat.
• Section 5A authorizes the Central Government to constitute the National Board for Wild Life ('NBWL'). Section 5C elicits the functions of the National Board. Section 5B authorizes the National Board to constitute a Standing Committee for the purpose of exercising such powers and performing such duties as may be delegated to the Committee by the National Board.

FACTS

• The population of Asiatic Lions in India has been restricted to the Gir National Park and Gir Sanctuary alone, where they face threats due to man-animal conflict, outbreak of possible epidemic or any natural calamity, etc. Such actions may wipe out the whole population.
• The need for a second home for the Asiatic Lions was therefore felt and accordingly, based on habitat feasibility studies by the Wildlife Institute of India in various Protected Areas.
• The Wildlife Institute of India ('WII'), an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short 'MoEF'), conducted studies to provide data to enhance the prospects for the long term conservation of lions at Gir. The data collected highlighted the necessity of a second natural habitat for its long term conservation.
• The WWI report found Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary (Madhya Pradesh) as the most suitable habitat for re-introduction of the Asiatic lion.

FACTS (contd.)

• The Government of Madhya Pradesh took up a massive re-location of villages from the sanctuary in M.P. by giving them alternative sites. This required the approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. The approval was granted.
• The Government of India constituted a Monitoring Committee for the effective implementation of the Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project at Kuno. The Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat had, however, opined that there was no commitment on the part of the State of Gujarat for providing lions and the State Government had not agreed for the same.
• Gujarat refused to a letter sent by the Minister of MoEF for translocation of lions to Kuno. This led to the filing of this public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Respondents to implement the re-location programme.
• The Court directed the proposal to be submitted to the National Board for Wildlife. NBWL was directed to consider the objections of State of Gujarat and response of Madhya Pradesh and submit its recommendation.

​

THE NBWL’s DISCUSSION

• TEMPERATURE: Gujarat’s contention that the Lions would not be able to survive in Kuno Palpur due to its extreme climatic conditions is not true. Lions exist and survive in a variety of habitats with varied prey densities, temperatures and vegetation communities across their range.
• PREY DENSITY: While the overall prey densities of Gir are in the higher range of lion densities while that of Kuno are in the medium to low density areas of lions, the natural prey densities in Kuno are significantly higher than the natural prey densities in areas in south Saurashtra outside the Gir where Lions have now taken residence. It was for these "outlying" Lion populations that translocation to Kuno Palpur was planned.
• PAST FAILURES: The contention of Government of Gujarat that translocation of Lions made in earlier occasion during were unsuccessful and therefore the present translocation also would not yield much results is not correct. In those instances, lions had become cattle-lifters. The introduced areas were small and devoid of adequate prey base and burdened with human population. However, this is not the present case. At present hunting is legally banned and proposed introduction area is not only having enough prey base but also devoid of human population.
• A continued program of exchange/supplementation of individual lions between Gir and Kuno is needed at the rate of 2-3 lions per generation.
• CONCLUSION: Recommended that the translocation of lions from Gir area to an alternate area, presently to the Kuno-Palpur Sanctuary, is the necessity of the hour essential for conservation of lions.

State Board for Wildlife (SBWL’s) Discussion

• The State of Gujarat took up the stand that, though the issue was discussed by the Standing Committee of NBWL, it had not been placed before the State Board for Wildlife (Gujarat), which is a statutory requirement under section 8 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
• The State Board took the view that there was no threat to Asiatic Lion in the Gir forest from epidemic diseases or other such factors.
• It was pointed out that the present Asiatic lion population has risen achieved.
• Further, it was pointed out that previous attempts for translocation from Gujarat were also a failure and since the Greater Gir region being an ideal preservation and conservation for Asiatic lions, there is no necessity of finding out a second home for Asiatic lion at Kuno.
• The issue of giving or not giving lions to Kuno is not an issue of conflict between States, but it is a collective Indian cultural approach in the interest of long term conservation of lions as part of our family.

​

THE DECISION

ANTHROPOCENTRIC v. ECO-CENTRIC

• Anthropocentrism: Human interest focussed thinking that non-human has only instrumental value to humans. In other words, humans take precedence and human responsibilities to non-human are based benefits to humans.
• Eco-centrism: Nature-centred where humans are part of nature and non-humans have intrinsic value. In other words, human interest does not take automatic precedence and humans have obligations to non-humans independently of human interest.
• While examining the necessity of a second home for the Asiatic lions, our approach should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric and we must apply the "species best interest standard"
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only the human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to protect and preserve a specie becoming extinct, conservation and protection of environment.
• There is uniformity in the views expressed by the Bio-Scientists of WII, NBWL, MoEF and other experts that to have a second home for the endangered species like Asiatic lion is of vital importance. A detailed study has been conducted to find out the most suitable habitat for its re-introduction and Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary ('Kuno') in Madhya Pradesh, as already indicted, has been found to be the most ideal habitat.

​

THE DECISION (contd.)

OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF WILD ANIMALS

• No state, organisation or person can claim ownership or possession over wild animals in the Forest.
• Animals in the wild are properties of the nation for which no state can claim ownership and the state's duty is to protect the wild life and conserve it, for ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country.

THE SBWL’S VIEW

• SBWL, Gujarat and took the view that that the issue of giving or not giving lions to Kuno is not an issue of conflict between States, but it is a collective Indian cultural approach in the interest of long term conservation of lions as part of our family. SBWL further maintained the stand that Asiatic Lion being a "family member" is beyond and higher than the "scientific reasoning".
• Approach made by SWBL and the State of Gujarat is an anthropocentric approach, not eco-centric.
• The fundamental issue is whether the Asiatic lions should have a second home. The cardinal issue is not whether the Asiatic lion is a "family member" or is part of the "Indian culture and civilization", or the pride of a State but the preservation of an endangered species for which we have to apply the "species best interest standard".
• "Scientific reasoning" for its re-location has to supersede the family bond or pride of the people and we have to look at the species best interest especially in a situation where the specie is found to be a critically endangered one and the necessity of a second home has been keenly felt.

​

THE DECISION (contd.)

CHEETAH TO KUNO

• While the matter was being heard, a decision was made by MoEF to import African Cheetahs from Namibia to India and to introduce the same at Kuno.
• Kuno is not a historical habitat for African cheetahs and no material were placed to establish that fact.
• A detailed scientific study to be done before introducing a foreign species to India must have been done.
• NBWL, which is Statutory Board established for the purpose under the Wildlife Protection Act was also not consulted.
• MoEF had not conducted any detailed study before passing the order of introducing foreign cheetah to Kuno.
• Between the two, the top priority was to protect Asiatic lions, an endangered species and to provide a second home.
• The decision taken by MoEF for introduction of African cheetahs first to Kuno and then Asiatic lion, was held as arbitrary and illegal and clear violation of the statutory requirements of the Wildlife Protection Act. The order of MoEF to introduce African Cheetahs into Kuno was therefore quashed.
• Lastly, the court highlighted the necessity of an exclusive parliamentary legislation for the preservation and protection of endangered species so as to carry out the recovery programmes before many of the species become extinct.

​