The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasized the need for a balanced perspective on allowing private buses to operate within the core area of Jim Corbett National Park, Uttarakhand.
Hearing a petition challenging this decision, a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan advised the central empowered committee to consider both environmental and human concerns.
“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,” the bench remarked.
The petition objects to a December 23, 2020, order permitting privately operated buses to ply on the Pakhro-Moreghatti-Kalagarh-Ramnagar Forest road. In February 2021, the Supreme Court stayed the order’s implementation.
Local Convenience Versus Wildlife Conservation
The road in question spans 53 kilometers, of which 45 kilometers traverse the buffer zone and 8 kilometers pass through the core area of the tiger reserve. Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, acting as amicus curiae, informed the court that the CEC had submitted a report opposing the private bus service.
Uttarakhand’s counsel argued that an 18-seater bus has been operational on the route since 1986, primarily for local residents’ convenience. However, the amicus pointed out that objections were limited to commercial bus services, not the road itself.
The bench questioned the inconsistency in opposing an 18-seater bus for residents while permitting 24-seater tourist vehicles in core areas. It suggested replacing private buses with a state-operated service to address concerns.
Directive for Responses
The court directed the CEC report be shared with lawyers representing the state and central governments and granted three weeks for them to file responses. The matter will be heard further after the submissions.
Petitioner’s Concerns
The petitioner, represented by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, alleged that forest officials allowed private buses to operate in the core area to benefit a private company. The plea highlighted Section 38(O) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, which prohibits tiger reserves from being diverted for ecologically unsustainable activities without prior approval from the National Board for Wildlife and the National Tiger Conservation Authority.
The petition seeks the quashing of the national park director’s 2020 order, asserting that it violates statutory provisions meant to protect wildlife and natural habitats.
Balancing Rights
In an earlier hearing in July, the court stressed the need to balance environmental conservation with the rights of local residents, noting that villages in the vicinity also require access.
The final decision will aim to address both ecological sustainability and the essential needs of the people residing near the reserve.
