‘Victim Of Crass Commercialism’: Madras HC Restrains Govt From Organizing Heli Tourism In Nilgiris

The Madras High Court restrained the State Government from organizing heli-tourism in the Nilgiris area as part of the Summer Festival and emphasized that the region’s vulnerable biodiverse eco-system cannot be a victim of crass commercialism.

“The fragile eco-system and vulnerability of this bio-diverse region cannot be the victim of crass commercialism, that too in such an unplanned and careless fashion,” the court remarked.

The division bench, comprised of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Nirmal Kumar, noted that the Tourism Department proposed Heli-tourism without proper study or consultation with the Forest Department or wildlife wardens, and was merely intended to generate revenue for the State.

“While we are not possessed of the technical expertise to pass judgment upon the finer and detailed aspects of the biodiversity in the Nilgiris or of the deleterious effects of helicopters in that region, and neither is that the requirement in this case, we are of the categoric view that the respondents have been remiss in rushing to endorse and advertise the heli tourism project even prior to assessing all relevant material, and holding consultations with the Sanctuary wardens and officials of the Forest Department,” the bench stated.

The division bench was hearing a petition filed by Dr. T Murugavel, who expressed concerns about the Tourism Department’s proposed heli-tourism program. Murugavel had claimed that helicopter operations in the area would have a negative impact on the area’s biodiversity. He also claimed that it added nothing to public life and was merely a tourist attraction.

The court stated that the feasibility of the helicopter operation in an ecologically sensitive area should have been approached with caution and care. It went on to say that tourism policies must strike a balance between public concerns, particularly the environment and wildlife.

After reviewing the materials, the court concluded that the necessary discussions with forest authorities were not held prior to planning the “Heli-tourism.”

The court was also perplexed as to how the authorities stationed in the area, who should have been aware of the unique features of the area, blatantly ignored them and approved the project. It further stated that proper consultation with domain experts, including an examination of all relevant and possible angles, must be a pre-requisite for such proposals, rather than an after-the-fact event.

Because of the region’s sensitivity, the court barred the authorities from conducting helitourism and ordered accordingly.