Recent SC judgement on Jim Corbett National Park

Source: The post recent SC judgement on Jim Corbett National Park has been created, based on the article “Decoding the judgment on Jim Corbett” published in “The Hindu” on 15th April 2024.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 3 – Ecology, and environment- conservation

News: The Supreme Court of India recently ruled against the illegal cutting of 6,000 trees in Jim Corbett National Park, emphasizing the need to prioritize eco-centric approaches over human-centered ones for conservation. Recent SC judgement on Jim Corbett National Park

What is the recent SC judgement on Jim Corbett National Park?

Illegal Felling Exposed: The Supreme Court highlighted the collusion among politicians, forest officials, and local contractors in the illegal cutting down of 6,000 trees in Jim Corbett National Park. This action violates conservation-focused laws such as the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Project Tiger, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Shift in Conservation Approach: The court criticized the current anthropocentric methods of conservation and advocated for an ecocentric approach, prioritizing nature and ecosystem integrity over human benefits.

Ban on Tiger Safaris: It banned tiger safaris in the core areas of national parks to reduce disturbance to wildlife and natural habitats, stressing that wildlife must not be treated like zoo exhibits.

Committee Formation: The court ordered the formation of a committee to evaluate the feasibility of permitting tiger safaris in peripheral areas, reflecting a balanced approach to conservation and tourism.

Precautionary Principle Invoked: The judgment applied the precautionary principle, emphasizing preventive action in environmental governance to minimize harm to biodiversity and ecosystems.

What did the Supreme Court miss in its judgment?

Lack of Defined Methodology for Restoration: The court’s intention to assess and recover costs for the damage to Jim Corbett’s green cover lacks a clear methodology, making actual restoration doubtful.

Inadequate Compensation Methods: The existing financial mechanisms, such as the compensatory afforestation levy and net present value (NPV), introduced by the Supreme Court in 2002 after the T.N. Godavarman case (1996), do not fully account for the broader environmental damages. They fail to consider the broader ecological harm caused by deforestation beyond just tree loss. The recent Supreme Court judgment did not address these limitations.

For details information on Godavarman case read here

Underestimation of Ecosystem Services: The court could have emphasized the importance of ecosystem services, which are more valuable than the revenue from eco-tourism. A methodology for evaluating such services, as discussed in the International Court of Justice’s 2018 Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, could have been considered.

Focus on Eco-Tourism over Biodiversity: The emphasis remains on eco-tourism for revenue, despite significant biodiversity losses, including a 90% reduction in area under four biodiversity hotspots and 12% of species being endangered.

How precautionary principle is helpful in tackling environmental problems?

Prevents Irreversible Damage: The precautionary principle states that the lack of full scientific certainty should not delay actions to prevent environmental harm, especially when the damage could be serious or irreversible.

Applied to Biodiversity: Norman Myers highlights its importance for biodiversity, noting that unchecked mass extinction could impoverish the biosphere for millions of years.

Supports Endangered Species: The principal underscores actions to protect the 12% of endangered animal species in India, as identified by the IUCN’s Red List.

Question for practice:

Evaluate the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on tree cutting in Jim Corbett National Park, focusing on its use of the precautionary principle and critiques of restoration methods, compensation, and prioritizing tourism over biodiversity.