Court’s decision
The Supreme Court, exercising continuing jurisdiction in the long-running forest conservation proceedings, examines the State’s shifting stand on declaring Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and its attempt to reduce the notified area from 31,468.25 hectares to 24,941.64 hectares. The Court records that the State has repeatedly admitted that in the 31,468.25-hectare game sanctuary area there is virtually no mining and no diversion for non-forest use, barring a tiny road strip.
Holding that the State has shown “totally unfair” conduct and clear non-compliance with previous orders, the Court treats the power to declare a wildlife sanctuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act as a power coupled with a constitutional duty. It rejects mining-led attempts to shrink the sanctuary and proceeds on the footing that Saranda’s ecologically intact game sanctuary area must receive statutory wildlife sanctuary protection.
Facts
Saranda is described by the Court as one of the world’s most pristine Sal forests, forming a biodiversity hotspot and wildlife corridor connecting forests in Jharkhand, Odisha and Chhattisgarh. It shelters elephants, leopards, deer, bison and even the critically endangered Sal Forest Tortoise.
In 1968, the then State of Bihar notified 31,468.25 hectares in Saranda as “Saranda Game Sanctuary” under forest rules. After State reorganisation, this area fell in Jharkhand. Later, a National Green Tribunal order in 2022 noted that Saranda’s 31,468.25 hectares were “a repository of some of the finest Sal trees in the country” and directed the State to consider declaring the area as a sanctuary.
Despite this, no effective action was taken, prompting an application before the Supreme Court seeking directions to treat the 1968 game sanctuary area as a deemed wildlife sanctuary and to compel a proper notification under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Issues
- Whether the State can resile from its own affidavits and earlier proposals and unilaterally reduce the proposed Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary from 31,468.25 hectares to 24,941.64 hectares.
- Whether the power to notify a wildlife sanctuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is merely discretionary, or a power coupled with a duty in light of Article 48A, Article 51A(g) and the Court’s forest conservation jurisprudence.
- How the rights of forest-dwelling and tribal communities, as recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, interact with the declaration of a wildlife sanctuary.
- Whether future mining prospects and existing economic interests can justify delaying or diluting sanctuary notification in a pristine forest already recognised as ecologically critical.
Petitioner’s arguments
The applicant and supporting counsel emphasised that Saranda’s ecological value is undisputed. They relied on the State’s own affidavits stating that in 126 compartments covering 31,468.25 hectares “neither any kind of mining excavation operations nor any diversion of forest land for mining purpose has been undertaken,” save a small road area.
They argued that the National Green Tribunal had already recorded Saranda as “a repository of some of the finest Sal trees in the country” with rich wildlife, and had directed the State to consider sanctuary notification, which the State ignored for years.
The amicus curiae submitted that the statutory power to declare a sanctuary is a power coupled with a duty, and that declaration of Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary would not extinguish the existing rights of tribal and forest-dwelling communities protected under the Forest Rights Act. Instead, the notification would mainly regulate future diversion of forest land and mining.
Respondent’s arguments
The State contended that confusion arose because an internal communication from the Wildlife Institute of India mentioned 57,519.41 hectares, leading to an affidavit proposing a larger sanctuary which was later reconsidered. It maintained that its present proposal to notify only 24,941.64 hectares was based on a committee review and the need to balance conservation with developmental realities.
The State claimed that the excluded area contained vital public infrastructure like roads and educational facilities, long-established tribal habitations and agricultural lands, and that blanket inclusion would cause community displacement, livelihood loss and socio-cultural disruption. It also flagged concerns about security and insurgency in the region, arguing that these factors justified scaling down the sanctuary area and re-drawing boundaries.
Analysis of the law
The Court analyses the scheme of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, starting with Section 18 (procedure for declaring a sanctuary) and Section 26A (final notification). These provisions empower the State to notify ecologically important areas for protection of wildlife and habitat.
Reading the Wildlife (Protection) Act alongside the Forest (Conservation) Act and constitutional mandates, the Court stresses that legal tools for forest conservation cannot be rendered illusory by executive indecision or mining-driven backtracking. Once an area has been identified as ecologically critical, and especially where the State has repeatedly admitted that there are no active mines or diversions, the legal obligation tilts strongly in favour of statutory protection.
The Court accepts the amicus’ submission that the power to declare a wildlife sanctuary is a power coupled with a duty, particularly after the 2006 amendments that strengthened wildlife protection. It notes that sanctuary declaration does not, by itself, displace tribal communities or extinguish recognised rights under the Forest Rights Act.
Precedent analysis
The present order is passed within the long-running forest conservation proceedings that began with the landmark T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad matter, through which the Supreme Court has monitored compliance with forest and wildlife laws across India. The Court notes that the protection of pristine forest areas like Saranda must be viewed in continuity with that jurisprudence, which treats forests as a national asset and enforces the Forest (Conservation) Act rigorously.
The Court also relies on the 2022 order of the National Green Tribunal’s Eastern Zone Bench, which directed the State to consider declaring the 31,468.25-hectare Saranda/Sasangada forest as a sanctuary, recognising that this massive area, whether labelled “game sanctuary” or not, is a repository of the finest Sal forests and rich wildlife.
Further, the State’s own successive affidavits and proposals are treated almost like self-binding commitments: the Court recalls its earlier orders of November 2024, February 2025, April 2025 and September 2025 where it recorded the State’s unequivocal statements about notifying Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and warned that a mandamus would follow in case of non-compliance.
Court’s reasoning
The Court painstakingly recites the chronology of affidavits and orders to demonstrate how the State shifted from proposing 31,468.25 hectares, to promising 57,519.41 hectares, to finally trying to restrict the sanctuary to 24,941.64 hectares after mining and geology concerns were raised.
It characterises the State’s approach as “dilly-dallying tactics” and even records that the conduct has been “totally unfair”, noting that serious directions were issued and timelines fixed, yet the State repeatedly backtracked.
Crucially, the Court emphasises that the area of 31,468.25 hectares has already been notified as a game sanctuary since 1968, and that the State’s own Divisional Forest Officer certified that, apart from an approximately 4.31-hectare road stretch, there are no mining excavation operations or diversions there. In such a situation, the Court finds “no reason” why the State should now reduce the area under protection.
The Court rejects the notion that sanctuary declaration would automatically lead to displacement of tribal communities or extinguishment of their forest rights, reminding that these are independently protected under the Forest Rights Act.
Conclusion
In the concluding part of its analysis, the Supreme Court makes it clear that Saranda’s ecologically intact game sanctuary area of 31,468.25 hectares must receive full legal protection as a wildlife sanctuary. It refuses to accept the State’s attempt to shrink the sanctuary to 24,941.64 hectares on the basis of late-raised mining and infrastructure concerns, especially when those concerns were never disclosed in earlier affidavits.
The Court proceeds on the basis that the State’s power under the Wildlife (Protection) Act is a constitutional duty to secure forests and wildlife, not a discretionary tool that can be moulded to accommodate speculative mining prospects. It underlines that continuing non-compliance with prior assurances and orders could invite coercive directions, including a judicial mandamus compelling notification in terms of the State’s own earlier commitments.
Implications
This judgment has major implications for forest conservation and mining regulation in India. It strengthens the principle that once a State admits an area is pristine, free from mining and ecologically critical, it cannot later dilute protection for commercial or political expediency.
For Saranda, the decision means that the entire 31,468.25-hectare game sanctuary area must be treated as a candidate for full wildlife sanctuary protection under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, limiting new mining and diversion. For other forest landscapes, the judgment reaffirms that courts will scrutinise “dilly-dallying” and shifting stands, and may treat State affidavits and proposals as binding commitments that can be enforced by mandamus.
