Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) Consideration as to whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing or not.

78. In this background, we will have to consider the question as to whether the ‘zoo’ as defined under Section 2(39) and dealt with under Chapter IVA of the WLP Act and the ‘Tiger Safaris’ as conceptualized by the NTCA would stand on a same footing or not.

79. We have already reproduced the definition of ‘zoo’ as defined under Section 2(39) of the WLP Act. The definition of ‘zoo’ itself would show that it is meant to be an establishment, whether stationary or mobile, where captive animals are kept for exhibiting to the public or ex-situ conservation and include a circus and off- 7 (2023) 8 SCC 643=2023 INSC 22 8 2024 SCC OnLine SC 36=2024 INSC 30 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1469 = 2022 INSC 465 exhibit facilities such as rescue centres and conservation breeding centres. However, it does not include the establishment of a licensed dealer in captive animals. It could thus be seen that though a ‘zoo’ as contemplated under Chapter IVA of the WLP Act also deals with conservation, it emphasizes on ex situ conservation.

81. For the first time, a ‘safari’ was defined in the ‘Guidelines for Safari Parks which are Working either as Zoos or as Extension to Zoos, 1996’. It reads thus:

“Safaries are specialized zoos where the captive animals are housed in any large naturalistic enclosures to and the visitors are allowed to enter the enclosure to view the animals in a mechanized vehicle or a pre-determined route from close quarters.”

82. It could thus be seen from the title of the said Guidelines itself that the same would be applicable only insofar as safari parks which are working either as zoos or as an extension to zoos.

(e) Concern of the CEC

139. The CEC in its report has also elaborately dealt with the past and present policy of MoEF&CC in granting the Forest Clearance (FC) and the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life (SC, NBWL) clearances to set up zoos and safaris as forestry and non-forestry activities. It is stated that from the perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) held on 17th February 2021, it would show that, in order to grant clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 (“FC Act” for short), zoos were treated as forestry activity till 2007. However, from 2017 onwards, it was treated as a non-forestry activity. Thereafter, only 15% of the total area required for parking and cafeteria, etc. for the setting up of zoos/safaris was treated as a non-forestry activity. However, the State is required to get an approval from the MoEF&CC under the FC Act for the entire area required for the setting up of zoos and safaris. The Net Present Value (NPV) is being collected only in respect of 15% of the total area. The CEC therefore observed that there was a lack of clarity in policy regarding the setting up of zoos and safaris inside the forest boundary in such a sensitive matter.

144. The report refers to some of the studies in various zoos/Safari Parks, including Hyderabad Zoo, Jaipur Zoo, Etawah Safari Park, etc.

145. The CEC elaborately refers to various mortalities that occurred in various zoos in the recent past. The CEC report also refers to the stand of the NTCA about the in-principle approvals that have been granted by them for 5 Tiger Safaris in and around the Tiger Reserves of India. The report states that the NTCA highlighted the following main advantages/disadvantages in setting up zoos and safaris within the forest area/protected area/Tiger Reserve: