WWF-India vs UOI 2013 8 SCC 234

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is dedicated to protecting the world's wildlife by directing its conservation
efforts toward protecting endangered spaces and addressing global threats.

Introduction
The present case was filed in the Supreme Court to seek an order ensuring the translocation of Asiatic Lions from
the Gir forests to the proposed alternative site at Kuno, Madhya Pradesh. However, the Gujarat government refused
to this proposal as they opined that there was no necessity to create a new Asiatic Lion sanctuary. The Supreme
Court, in this case, allowed the plea of the petitioners and prioritised the protection of the species.

Facts of the Case

The Wildlife Institute of India (WII) which comes under the Ministry of Environment & Forests is involved in
researching with respect to better management of the Gir forest, which is the sole habitat for Asiatic Lions in the
world. The research highlighted the necessity for a second natural habitat for Asiatic lions with the objective of
long-term conservation of the species. In October 1993, a meeting was held wherein the same was discussed and
three alternative sites for relocation were suggested as follows:

A) Darrah-Jawaharsagar Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan

B) Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan

C) Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh.

WII’s Research Advisory Committee conducted a field survey of the three aforementioned sites with sufficient
consideration to all the necessary factors for the relocation of Asiatic Lions. After the survey, the committee found
that the Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh was the most suitable site for the reintroduction of Asiatic
Lions. Accordingly, a report was made highlighting the rehabilitation plan. After this report, the State of Madhya
Pradesh undertook a massive rehabilitation package for the relocation of Asiatic Lions in the area and obtained the
permission from MoEF under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, for which 24 villages were
rehabilitated.

In 2004, the GoI constituted a monitoring committee for the implementation of the said project. However, it was
observed that the State Of Gujarat stated was uninterested in cooperating. Meanwhile, MoEF sent a detailed
proposal of the project to the Gujarat Government, but Gujarat Government’s Forest and Environment Ministry
objected to the relocation of Asiatic Lions to Kuno. This matter was referred to the Supreme Court, and the court
directed them to submit the proposal before the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) {It is an advisory board and
advises the central government on policy matters concerned with wildlife conservation in the country}.

NBWL convened a meeting with Gujarat state’s minister for Wildlife and Environment and informed them about the
steps that had been taken for the relocation project at Kuno. The government of Gujarat raised few issues and
submitted a detailed report highlighting the measures taken by them for protecting Asiatic Lions. Furthermore, the
 Madhya Pradesh pointed that the state had already relocated 24 villages from the sanctuary for this project, and
therefore, requested that the lions should be translocated to Kuno at the earliest. Finally, NBWL proposed for the
translocation of Asiatic Lions from Gujarat to Kuno, which was unanimously accepted. Gujarat filed an affidavit
objecting to the translocation of lions. The NBWL held a meeting, and the representatives of both states were
present. After taking into consideration the various arguments put forth by all the parties, NBWL authorised MoEF
to file an affidavit before the Supreme Court. The Government of Gujarat also filed a detailed affidavit, which
specifically highlighted the issue of insufficiency of prey base at Kuno.

Issues Raised
1. Was there a necessity to relocate Asiatic Lions, which is an endangered species from Gir to Kuno?
2. Whether the State of Gujarat is liable to translocate the Asiatic Lions from Gir National Park to Kuno for the
reintroduction of the endangered species?
3. Whether proper research and study had been conducted by researchers for the effective implementation of the
project?

Summary of Arguments

Applicants: The project of translocation of Asiatic Lions to Kuno was delayed due to the indifferent attitude of the
Government of Gujarat. Furthermore, environmentalists around the world have unanimously advocated for the
translocation project keeping in view the long-term survival and preservation of the species. He also pointed out that
the NBWL has also granted technical sanction for the project.
Madhya Pradesh: Steps taken by the MP government for the project, necessary sanctions had already been obtained
for the translocation project at Kuno. For rehabilitation purposes, the GoI granted funds which was utilised by the
MP government. Relying on the independent study by WII, Kuno had sufficient prey base for the lions and adequate
training had been given to the forest staff for monitoring Asiatic Lions.

Additional Solicitor General submitted that there were conceivable threats to the survival of Asiatic Lions at Gir
even though their numbers were increasing. He pointed out that there were other challenges like epidemic outbreaks
that could wipe out the entire population of lions due to the limited geographical space at Gir.

Matter of extreme urgency for the protection of Asiatic Lions as they were included in the Red List prepared by
IUCN (IUCN is the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it.).
Reference was made to Article 48 & Article 51-A of the Constitution wherein it was pointed out that the state has to
protect and improve the environment.

Respondent: The State of Gujarat was represented by Shyam Divan who refuted all the contentions by the
applicants and submitted that there was no need to relocate the lions. He reiterated that the Asiatic Lion population
had been adequately protected in the Gir forests and adjacent sanctuaries of the Gir forest in Gujarat. He submitted
that due to the efforts of the Gujarat Government, the number of Asiatic Lions has gone up, and therefore, there was
no need for immediate translocation of Asiatic Lions. Further, he submitted that no proper plan had been made for
the successful reintroduction of the species at Kuno. Referring to section 12 of the WLPA the translocation should
be to an “alternative suitable habitat”. Kuno was not a suitable alternative habitat to the species like Asiatic Lions
due to various factors such as the presence of tigers, poaching, climatic condition, etc.

Judgement
After considering the submissions and noticing all possible steps that had been taken by the state of Madhya
Pradesh, Ministry of Environment, and Forests and the Union of India, the court held that Kuno wildlife sanctuary
was fit for the reintroduction of Asiatic Lion along with the approval of NBWL.

The two-judge bench gave importance to the translocation of Asiatic Lions and decided that reintroduction should
be done as per IUCN guidelines and with the active participation of the experts in this field. The court also
recommended constituting an expert committee consisting of senior officials of MoEF, Chief wildlife Wardens of
both MP and Gujarat, and the experts in the field. The committee was to assess the density of the prey base and
other factors for relocation at Kuno.

The court highlighted the necessity for a legislation to deal with the preservation and protection of endangered
species, which would give directions to the GoI in the matters of preservation of endangered species. The court
directed the GoI & MoEF to identify all the endangered species and study their needs to establish a secure habitat
for them. The court emphasised on the need for providing attention to the implementation of recovery programs,
which would be carried out with the commitment of courts and environmentalists.