Supreme Court Bans Tiger Safaris in Core Areas: Prioritizing Conservation over Commercialization

Key highlights of the judgment include: 1. Core vs. Buffer Zones: The court clarified that while ecotourism is vital for generating awareness and revenue, it cannot come at the cost of the 'core' areas which are designated as critical tiger habitats under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Safaris are now strictly limited to buffer and fringe areas. 2. NTCA Guidelines: Any future safari projects must strictly adhere to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines. The court also directed the establishment of a committee to assess the damage and recommend restoration measures. 3. Accountability: The judgment calls for a specialized agency (like the CBI) to investigate the irregularities, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in environmental governance. This ruling serves as a reminder that wildlife sanctuaries are not 'zoos' and that the primary objective of tiger reserves is conservation, not commercial exploitation. It sets a legal precedent for balancing the demands of the tourism industry with the ecological necessity of maintaining undisturbed wildlife corridors. UPSC Relevance: This judgment is a significant case study for GS Paper III (Environment) regarding the conflict between development/tourism and conservation. It also touches upon GS Paper II (Judiciary) concerning the court's role in environmental governance and the application of the 'Precautionary Principle' in public policy and administrative accountability.