Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The State of Gujarat filed a detailed affidavit before this Court on 4.4.2009 stating that the State had objected to the translocation of lions and that the decision of the Standing Committee was not unanimous. Further, it was also pointed out that there was no sufficient prey base at Kuno so as to receive lions.

14. This Court, after perusing the affidavit filed by the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh as well as MoEF, again passed an order dated 22.4.2009 directing NBWL to have a fresh look on the subject and file a report. It was also ordered that NBWL should hear both the States, if necessary before filing the report. The additional affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat was also placed for consideration before NBWL in its meeting held on 17.7.2009. In that meeting, the Chief Wildlife Warden and the Principal Secretary (Forests) were present on behalf of the State of Gujarat. After detailed discussion, the Standing Committee of NBWL had unanimously decided to have an in-house technical discussion on the subject before taking a final view. The technical discussion was, therefore, held during the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee which was convened on 16.9.2009. In that meeting, the representatives of the Government of Madhya Pradesh (Additional Chief Secretary and Chief Wildlife Warden), Government of Gujarat (Principal Secretary – Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden) along with non-official members of the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife were also present during the discussions. The following decisions were taken in the technical discussion held on 16.9.2009:

22. Shri P. S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel and learned Amicus Curiae apprised the court of the extreme urgency for the protection of the Asiatic lion which has been included in the Red List published by the International Union for Conservation of Natgure (IUCN) as critically endangered species, endorsed by NBWL in various meetings. NBWL, being the highest scientific statutory body, it commands respect and its opinion is worthy of acceptance by the MoEF and all the State Governments. Learned senior counsel also referred to Article 48 and Article 51-A of the Constitution of India and submitted that the State has a duty to protect and improve environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife in the country, a duty cast upon all the States in the Union of India. Reference was also made to the conservatism in Bio-Diversity and the Eco-centric principle, which have been universally accepted. Learned senior counsel also referred to the National Wildlife Action Plan 2002-2016, and submitted that translocation of Asiatic lions has been treated as a priority project after having found that an alternative home for Asiatic lion is vital for its survival. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the National Forest Policy and the Scheme of 2009 and NWAP (2002-2016) and the plans have legislative force as decided in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others (2011) 7 SCC 338 case and can be enforced through Courts.

27. By Act 23 of 1982, Section 12(bb) was inserted in the Wild Life (Protection) Act w.e.f. 21.05.1982 which authorised 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 or population management of wild life without killing or poisoning or destroying any wild animals.

28. The Parliament later vide Act 16 of 2003 inserted Section 5A w.e.f. 22.09.2003 authorizing the Central Government to constitute the National Board for Wild Life (in short ‘NBWL’). By the same Amendment Act, Section 5C was also introduced eliciting functions of the National Board. Section 5B was also introduced by the aforesaid amendment authorizing 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. NBWL is, therefore, the top most scientific body established to frame policies and advise the Central and State Governments on the ways and means of promoting wild life conservation and to review the progress in the field of wild life conservation in the country and suggesting measures for improvement thereto. The Central and the State Governments cannot brush aside its opinion without any cogent or acceptable reasons. Legislation in its wisdom has conferred a duty on NBWL to provide conservation and development of wild life and forests.

50. The views of NBWL constituted by the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 5A of the Wildlife Protection Act, have to prevail over the views expressed by SBWL. The duties conferred on the National Board under Section 5C of the Act and on the State Board under Section 8 of the Act are entirely different. NBWL has a duty to promote conservation and development of wildlife and frame policies and advise the Central Government and the State Governments on the ways and importance of promoting wildlife conservation. It has to carry out/make assessment of various projects and activities on wildlife or its habitat. NBWL has also to review from time to time the progress in the field of wildlife conservation in the country and suggest measures for improving thereto. Those functions have not been conferred on the State Board. The State Board has been conferred with a duty to advise the State Government the selection and management of areas to be declared as protected areas and advise the State Government in formation of their policies for protection and conservation of the wildlife and specify plans etc. Statutorily, therefore, it is the duty of NBWL to promote conservation and development of wildlife with a view to ensuring ecological and environmental security in the country. We are, therefore, of the view that the various decisions taken by NBWL that Asiatic lion should have a second home to save it from extinction, due to catastrophes like epidemic, large forest fire etc, which could result in extinction, is justified. This Court, sitting in the jurisdiction, is not justified in taking a contrary view from that of NBWL.