💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: National Parks

  • SC committee pulls up Assam government for inaction over mining activity near Kaziranga

    SC committee pulls up Assam government for inaction over mining activity near Kaziranga

    Why in the News

    The Central Empowered Committee (CEC), a body constituted by the Supreme Court to monitor compliance with its forest and wildlife orders, has held that the Assam government did not address mining in and around the Parkup Pahar Range with the seriousness it deserved. The Range is a declared wildlife sanctuary and a vital ecological corridor on the southern boundary of Kaziranga National Park. The finding follows the CEC’s own directions of 30 May 2025 to the Assam Chief Secretary, which required a comprehensive Watershed Drainage Analysis Report and quarterly status reports on action against reported violations. The Supreme Court had already restrained all mining along Kaziranga’s southern boundary by an order of 12 April 2019. The committee’s finding lands amid a separate controversy over a plan to reduce the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Kaziranga National Park, so the State is seeking a narrower buffer while existing court-ordered protections remain unimplemented.

    What is the Central Empowered Committee?

    1. A court appointed compliance body: The CEC was constituted by the Supreme Court to monitor and report on compliance with its orders in forest and wildlife matters, and to examine applications referred to it.
    2. What it produces: It examines complaints and applications, calls for records from State governments, and files reports and recommendations to the Supreme Court on which the Court then acts.
    3. How its directions reach a State: It writes directly to the State Chief Secretary with timelines and required submissions, and treats the absence of a submission as a compliance failure to be reported.

    What did the Right to Information trail reveal?

    1. The application: A Right to Information (RTI) application was filed on 15 June by an environmental activist, seeking details of compliance with those directions.
    2. What was sought: It asked for copies of both submissions the directions had required of the State.
    3. The core document is missing: The CEC’s response of 17 July stated that it did not receive the comprehensive Watershed Drainage Analysis Report.
    4. Partial compliance only: The response said the quarterly status reports had been attached, and it does not show that the watershed exercise the CEC ordered was completed.
    5. The deadline had already passed: The CEC had fixed October 2025 as the deadline for submitting the watershed report.

    What does the earlier record show?

    1. The originating proceeding: The CEC recorded allegations of renewed mining in Parkup Pahar in the same report that carried those directions, filed on “Application No.1592 of 2024”.
    2. The standing court order: The Supreme Court’s order of 12 April 2019 restrained all mining and related activities along the southern boundary of Kaziranga, and throughout the catchments of rivers and streams originating in the Karbi Anglong hills and flowing into the park.
    3. The construction bar: The same order prohibited new construction on private lands forming part of nine identified animal corridors.
    4. Mining continued regardless: On 3 March the CEC wrote to the Assam Chief Secretary noting that mining and related activities had been going on “in some way on one pretext or the other”.
    5. The local authority’s conduct: The same letter recorded that the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC) was not presenting a holistic picture to the courts. The KAAC administers Karbi Anglong, the district that forms Kaziranga’s southern boundary.
    6. A six year old request remains unanswered: The CEC’s letter of 6 May 2021 specifically asked the State government to communicate the action taken to notify the animal corridors connecting the park, and no response was received. The catchment areas of the streams and rivers originating in the Karbi Anglong hills remain unidentified after more than six years.

    Why does the elephant reserve finding matter?

    1. The area is doubly protected: The Parkup Pahar Range is both a declared wildlife sanctuary and a vital ecological corridor linking the park to the Karbi Anglong hills.
    2. The reserve covers both landscapes: The Karbi Anglong Elephant Reserve covers Karbi Anglong and Kaziranga National Park, so the mining sits inside a notified elephant reserve rather than beside one.
    3. Documented damage: The panel pointed to areas of the reserve ravaged by large-scale mining, and to the death of several elephants due to conflicts with humans.
    4. The leases themselves are questioned: The CEC asked how mining leases around Borjuri could have been sanctioned at all, given that the area forms part of the elephant reserve.
    5. The administering council is faulted directly: The CEC recorded that the KAAC “seems oblivious of all these notifications and is not conscious of the measures that need to be taken to protect the ecology and wildlife of the area”.
    6. The corridor system is the stake: Animal corridors are what allow a population to move between the park and the hills, so an unnotified corridor is legally open to the construction the 2019 order sought to bar.

    Challenges to enforcing the Central Empowered Committee’s directions

    1. The committee has no independent enforcement power: The CEC reports and recommends, and only the Supreme Court can compel a State, so a State that misses a deadline faces no immediate consequence. Eg. The October 2025 watershed report deadline passed without the report and without penalty. Fix. Attach a default consequence to a missed CEC deadline, such as automatic suspension of fresh mineral concessions in the area concerned until the submission is filed.
    2. Autonomous councils sit outside the reporting chain: Sixth Schedule councils administer land and minor minerals in their areas, and directions addressed to the State Chief Secretary do not bind them directly. Eg. The National Green Tribunal’s 2014 ban on rat-hole coal mining in Meghalaya was directed at the State government, while the land it covered is administered by Sixth Schedule district councils. Fix. Make the autonomous council a named respondent in compliance proceedings covering its area, with its own filing obligation.
    3. Corridor notification is discretionary in practice: Corridors are identified in reports and remain unnotified, so no legal restriction attaches to the land inside them. Eg. Nine animal corridors around Kaziranga identified in 2019 remain unnotified. Fix. Set a statutory deadline after identification, on the expiry of which the corridor stands provisionally notified pending State action.
    4. Baseline studies are the first casualty of delay: Watershed and catchment mapping is expensive and slow, and its absence makes every subsequent violation hard to establish. Eg. The catchment areas of streams flowing into the park remain unidentified after more than six years. Fix. Fund catchment mapping from the Compensatory Afforestation Fund and commission it through a central technical agency rather than the defaulting State.
    5. Compliance is monitored through citizen requests: The gap in this case surfaced through a private RTI application rather than through a compliance dashboard. Eg. The missing watershed report was revealed by an activist’s application of 15 June. Fix. Publish CEC directions and their compliance status on a public portal, so a lapsed deadline is visible without an application.

    Conclusion

    The Central Empowered Committee has reiterated that its earlier recommendations remain unimplemented and has asked the Assam government to ensure speedy implementation of all of them, and to immediately notify the nine identified animal corridors. The current status is that the watershed report is outstanding, the corridors are unnotified, and mining leases inside the Karbi Anglong Elephant Reserve remain unexplained. The next milestone is the State’s response on the corridor notification and the watershed exercise, alongside the separate decision on the proposed reduction of Kaziranga’s Eco-Sensitive Zone. The case turns on compliance rather than on the adequacy of the law, since the restraining order and the protected area notifications already exist.

    “[2026] With reference to Madhav National Park, which of the following statements is/are correct?

    1. It was declared a Tiger Reserve in India in 2025.

    2. Sakhya Sagar, which is designated as a Ramsar Site, is situated within this National Park.

    3. Its area is shared between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2

    (c) 2 and 3

    (d) 3 only

  • Supreme Court orders a time bound eviction framework for Agasthyamalai encroachments

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has held that clearing encroachments inside the protected areas of the Agasthyamalai landscape requires a structured, time bound and closely monitored framework. Encroachments have survived decades of directions from the Madras High Court and the top court, so the Court has shifted from ordering eviction to removing the benefits that keep illegal occupation viable. The Court also raised the option of using paramilitary forces to carry out the evictions.

    What is the Central Empowered Committee?

    1. About: The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) is a body that examines forest and wildlife compliance matters and reports its findings and recommendations directly to the Supreme Court.
    2. Mandate in this case: The Court directed it last year to survey the entire Agasthyamalai landscape and identify every non forestry activity running contrary to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
    3. Output: It submitted an interim report carrying division wise findings and recommended a time bound, division wise encroachment eviction plan.

    What did the Central Empowered Committee find on the ground?

    1. Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary: An area of 427.40 hectares stands encroached, with 237.09 hectares caught in litigation. Verified maps of the reserve forest are not available.
    2. Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve: As per official records of 2020, around 4,595 individuals are encroaching upon 5,071.27 hectares of reserved forest land.
    3. Nature of the occupation: The encroachments there are old, with many holdings under permanent cultivation of silk cotton, cardamom and beans.
    4. Structures inside forest land: A total of 116 government and public utility structures have been constructed inside forest lands without prior approval.
    5. Encroachers on the government payroll: A total of 118 individuals listed as encroachers were identified as serving or retired government employees, including personnel from the Army, the Police, the Forest Department and other State departments.
    6. Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: The total extent of encroachment is 10.16 hectares by 998 families.

    Why does encroachment in Srivilliputhur-Megamalai carry consequences beyond the forest boundary?

    1. Upper catchment function: The Committee recorded the reserve as one of the most ecologically vulnerable areas because it forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai river.
    2. Downstream dependence: The Vaigai is a critical water source for five downstream districts, so degradation of the catchment transfers the cost to users outside the forest.
    3. Permanent cultivation: Standing plantation crops convert a temporary trespass into a settled land use that resists seasonal eviction.
    4. Enforcement record: Despite clear orders from the Madras High Court to remove encroachments, no significant progress has been made so far.

    What did Tamil Nadu offer in its defence?

    1. Detailed affidavit: The State filed an affidavit listing the steps its authorities had already taken against encroachment.
    2. Resistance on the ground: It acknowledged resistance from encroachers as a live obstacle to eviction drives.
    3. Pending litigation: It cited ongoing court cases that block action on specific parcels.
    4. Social profile of encroachers: It stated that many encroachers were landless and drawn from economically weaker sections.
    5. Law and order risk: The Committee separately recorded that law and order problems arose whenever the Forest Department attempted evictions, making a joint effort necessary.

    Can the difficulty of rehabilitation justify indefinite postponement of eviction?

    1. The Court’s acceptance: The Bench accepted that the complexity of the rehabilitation task is real and cannot be understated.
    2. The limit it set: That complexity cannot serve as a perpetual justification for the indefinite postponement of legally mandated eviction and restoration measures.
    3. What the two positions expose: The State’s constraint is genuine and its cost falls on the forest, so every year of delay converts an unlawful occupation into a settled claim.
    4. The shift in remedy: The Court moved from repeating an eviction order that had failed for decades to withdrawing the entitlements that make continued occupation rational.

    What has the Supreme Court directed?

    1. Action against government servants: Disciplinary and legal action must be initiated against all 118 identified government servants found to be encroachers.
    2. Moratorium on state benefits: A blanket moratorium was sought on the extension of welfare schemes, public utilities, transport facilities, electricity supply and infrastructure support within encroached forest areas, so that illegal occupation is neither incentivised nor legitimised.
    3. Freeze on new activity: A complete prohibition was ordered on the approval or commencement of any new non forestry activity within Agasthyamalai.
    4. A monitored framework: The matter requires a structured, time bound and closely monitored framework rather than periodic directions.
    5. Force option: The Court went as far as to suggest using the paramilitary to evict the encroachers and protect the ecologically sensitive region.

    Why has the political economy of eviction defeated three decades of orders?

    1. Benefits without title: Welfare schemes, electricity and transport reaching encroached parcels signalled state acceptance, which is precisely what the moratorium now targets.
    2. Enforcers as beneficiaries: With 118 serving or retired government employees among the encroachers, including Forest Department personnel, the enforcing agency contained a section of the offenders.
    3. Numbers as leverage: Evicting 4,595 individuals in a single reserve converts a forest law question into a mass displacement question that no district administration will initiate alone.
    4. Electoral exposure: The newly formed coalition government in Tamil Nadu faces two major Dravidian parties in the Opposition that are likely to resist an eviction touching thousands of families.
    5. Restoration burden: Beyond eviction, the State carries the task of resettling and rehabilitating the displaced families and restoring the original forest cover.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court has accepted that a repeated eviction order is not a remedy when the State’s own benefit delivery keeps encroachment viable, so it has attacked the incentive rather than only the occupation. The directions now require disciplinary action against 118 government servants, a freeze on welfare and utility extension inside encroached forest, and a prohibition on fresh non forestry activity in Agasthyamalai. The State must now produce a division wise, time bound eviction and restoration plan while simultaneously resettling landless families it has itself described as economically weak. Whether the moratorium survives the political cost of enforcing it is the test the next hearing will apply.

    Protected Area Governance in India

    1. About: A protected area is a legally notified tract managed primarily for the conservation of wildlife and its habitat, with human use restricted by statute rather than by administrative discretion.
    2. Four statutory categories: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 provides for National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves, each with a different level of permitted human activity.
    3. Scale: India’s protected area network covers a little over 5 percent of the country’s geographical area, while recorded forest cover is close to a fifth of it.
    4. Tiger reserves: A tiger reserve is constituted with a core or Critical Tiger Habitat, kept inviolate, and a buffer zone allowing regulated coexistence.
    5. Diversion control: Any use of forest land for a non forest purpose requires prior central approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which is why the 116 unapproved structures in Agasthyamalai are themselves an offence.
    6. Judicial supervision: Forest governance in India has been supervised continuously by the Supreme Court since the 1996 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad proceedings, which extended statutory forest protection to all land recorded as forest.

    Laws and Rules Governing Forests and Wildlife in India

    1. Indian Forest Act, 1927: Provides for the constitution of reserved forests, protected forests and village forests, and defines forest offences and their penalties.
    2. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Establishes protected areas, prohibits hunting of scheduled species and regulates trade in wildlife articles.
    3. 2006 amendment: Created the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the statutory concept of Critical Tiger Habitat.
    4. 2022 amendment: Restructured the species schedules and gave effect to India’s obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
    5. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Bars the dereservation of reserved forest and the use of forest land for non forest purposes without prior approval of the Union government.
    6. Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 2023: Renamed the 1980 Act and exempted specified categories of land and strategic projects from prior approval.
    7. Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Recognises individual and community forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and provides the only lawful route for settling occupation claims.
    8. Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016: Governs the use of funds collected as compensatory afforestation and net present value from diverted forest land.
    9. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides the umbrella power under which eco sensitive zones around protected areas are notified.

    Key Facts about Protected Areas in India

    1. Project Tiger was launched in 1973 and Project Elephant in 1992.
    2. The National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau are the two central bodies created under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and its amendments.
    3. Critical Tiger Habitat is notified under Section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on the basis of scientific evidence.
    4. The Western Ghats were inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012 under the natural criteria.
    5. Wildlife Week is observed from 2 to 8 October every year.
    6. India’s biosphere reserves follow the core, buffer and transition zoning of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme.

    Back2Basics: The Agasthyamalai Landscape

    1. Location: It occupies the southern end of the Western Ghats, straddling the Tamil Nadu and Kerala border, and is named after the Agastyamalai peak.
    2. Designation: The Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve was designated in 2001 and was added to the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2016.
    3. Protected areas on the Tamil Nadu side: Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary.
    4. Protected areas on the Kerala side: Neyyar, Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuaries.
    5. Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: Notified in 1988 as Tamil Nadu’s first tiger reserve, it is often called a river sanctuary for the number of streams rising within it.
    6. Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve: Notified in 2021 as Tamil Nadu’s fifth tiger reserve, it forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai river.
    7. Species: The landscape holds the endemic lion tailed macaque, the Nilgiri tahr and the Nilgiri langur, alongside tiger and elephant populations.
    8. Communities: The Kani tribal community lives in the landscape and is associated with the traditional knowledge of the Arogyapacha plant.

    Challenges in Protected Area Management in India

    1. Encroachment and regularisation pressure: Long standing occupation acquires political protection and becomes practically irreversible. e.g. the 427.40 hectares encroached in Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, of which 237.09 hectares sit in litigation.
    2. Unauthorised construction inside forest land: Public agencies themselves build without the prior approval the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 requires. e.g. the 116 government and public utility structures recorded inside Agasthyamalai forest land.
    3. Linear infrastructure fragmentation: Roads and railway lines cut habitat into blocks and raise animal mortality. e.g. animal deaths on the national highway running through Kaziranga National Park during the annual Brahmaputra floods.
    4. Human wildlife conflict: Crop and life losses on the periphery erode local support for strict protection. e.g. repeated elephant deaths on the Madukkarai railway stretch near Coimbatore.
    5. Rights settlement conflicting with eviction: Claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and eviction drives run on separate tracks with no sequencing. e.g. the Supreme Court’s February 2019 order in Wildlife First v Union of India directing eviction of rejected claimants, which was stayed within weeks.
    6. Invasive species: Alien plants suppress native fodder and degrade grazing habitat. e.g. the spread of Lantana camara and Senna spectabilis across Bandipur and Wayanad.
    7. Frontline capacity deficit: Vacancies and weak equipment leave beat level protection thin. e.g. the Forest Department in Agasthyamalai being unable to conduct evictions without a joint force because of law and order risk.

    Way Forward

    1. Division wise time bound plan: Adopt the Committee’s recommendation of a division wise eviction schedule with named officers, fixed dates and monthly reporting to the Court.
    2. Sequence rights settlement before eviction: Complete the disposal of individual and community claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in each division first, so eviction proceeds only against occupation that has no legal basis.
    3. Rehabilitation package before displacement: Notify a resettlement package with alternative land, housing and livelihood support before any eviction of landless families, on the pattern of the voluntary village relocation model used in tiger reserves.
    4. Departmental accountability: Complete disciplinary proceedings against the 118 serving and retired government employees within a fixed period and publish the outcome.
    5. Verified cadastral mapping: Prepare and publish verified maps of the reserve forest boundaries of Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary using satellite imagery, since the absence of maps is itself an enabler of encroachment.
    6. Utility linkage audit: Audit every electricity connection, road and welfare scheme extended into forest parcels and terminate those inside notified boundaries.
    7. Catchment restoration: Fund assisted natural regeneration of the vacated Vaigai upper catchment through the Compensatory Afforestation Fund, with downstream district water users as monitored stakeholders.

    “[2020] Among the following Tiger Reserves, which one has the largest area under “Critical Tiger Habitat”?

    (a) Corbett

    (b) Ranthambore

    (c) Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam

    (d) Sunderbans

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:
    1. The boundaries of a National Park are defined by legislation.
    2. A Biosphere Reserve is declared to conserve a few specific species of flora and fauna.
    3. In a Wildlife Sanctuary, limited ‘ biotic interference is permitted.
    Which of the statements given above is /are correct ?

  • Consider the following pairs

    Consider the following pairs :
    National Park River flowing through the Park
    (1). Corbett National Park : Ganga
    (2). Kaziranga National Park : Manas
    (3). Silent Valley National Park : Kaveri
    Which of the above pairs is/are correctly matched?

  • Consider the following pairs

    Consider the following pairs :
    (1). Nokrek Biosphere Reserve : Garo Hills
    (2). Logtak (Loktak) Lake : Barail Range
    (3). Namdapha National Park : Dafla Hills
    Which of the above pairs is/are correctly matched?

  • Consider the following pairs

    Consider the following pairs :
    Dampa Tiger Reserve : Mizoram
    Gumti Wildlife Sanctuary : Sikkim
    Saramati Peak : Nagaland
    Select the correct answer using the code given below.

  • Match List I (Biosphere Reserve) with List II (States) and select the correct answer using the codes given below.

    Match List I (Biosphere Reserve) with List II (States) and select the correct answer using the codes given below.
    List I
    (A) Simlipal
    (B) Dehong Deband
    (C) Nokrek
    (D) Kanchenjunga

    List II
    1. Sikkim
    2. Uttaranchal
    3. Arunachal Pradesh
    4. Orrisa
    5. Meghalaya

  • Match List I (National Park/Sanctuary) with List II (State) and select the correct answer using the codes given below.

    Match List I (National Park/Sanctuary) with List II (State) and select the correct answer using the codes given below.
    (National Park Sanctuary) (State)
    A. Kanger Ghati National Park 1. Chhattisgarh
    B. Nagerhole National Park 2. Haryana
    C. Kugti Wildlife Sanctuary 3. Himachal Pradesh
    D. Sultanpur Bird Sanctuary 4. Karnataka

  • Consider the following statements concerning the Silent Valley National Park.

    Consider the following statements concerning the Silent Valley National Park.
    1. Silent Valley National Park is in the Nallamalai range.
    2. Pathrakkadavu Hydroelectric Project is proposed to be built near the Silent Valley National Park.
    3. The Kunthi river originates in Silent Valley’s rainforests.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Which one of the following is also known as Top Slip

    Which one of the following is also known as Top Slip?