The Supreme Court on Wednesday warned that animal-human conflicts pose a danger to the very existence of forests and wildlife, a balance has to be struck which takes care of the rights of both stakeholders.
“There has to be a balance between the rights of the stakeholders. We cannot take a lopsided view. Forests and wildlife will not exist if conflict between animals and humans are not resolved,” Justice B.R. Gavai observed.
INFOGRAPHICS | Human-Wildlife Conflict: Understanding the Impact on Elephants and Tigers in India
The court’s observations came while hearing a case concerning the demarcation of the boundaries of Assam’s Pobitora wildlife sanctuary, which hosts one of the largest rhino populations in the country, and the settlement of rights of villagers, drawn from the marginalised, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and backward communities, who reside within the sanctuary.
The Assam government, represented by senior advocate Nalin Kohli, submitted that it has constituted a special committee chaired by the Chief Secretary (Forests) to survey and suggest alterations in the boundaries of the sanctuary to protect the rights of the wildlife as well as the human inhabitants. A preliminary survey of the sanctuary had already been done and a map prepared.
The Bench said the State’s proposals regarding the sanctuary, including alterations in the boundaries would be cleared by the National Board of Wildlife and also undergo the scrutiny of the top court.
The court ordered the States to include the Chief Wildlife Warden and the Field Director of the Pobitora wildlife sanctuary to be made members of the special committee in order to represent the concerns of the wildlife.
The court noted in its order that “from the primary facie perusal of the map, it appears that the State proposes to delete smaller areas of the wildlife sanctuary and include a larger area so as to account for the land of the settlers and also the issue of the growing population of rhinoceros”.
Justice Gavai said the court respects environmental activists, but the human aspect of the problem should also be taken into consideration.
“You have to take into consideration the human angle. You cannot exist only for animals,” Justice Gavai told an environmental activist, who appeared as an intervenor.
On March 13, the apex court stayed the Assam government’s decision to denotify the Pobitora wildlife sanctuary.
“State government was not right in resolving to withdraw the notification dated March 17, 1998 notifying Pobitora wildlife sanctuary…. We direct that no further steps be taken with respect to the withdrawal of the notification dated March 17, 1998 by the State,” the court had noted in its March 13 order.
The Assam government had reasoned that the sanctuary was notified unilaterally by the Forest Department without consulting the Revenue Department or even the Chief Minister. The sanctuary was declared without settling the rights of the people living in villages in the area, including Thengabhanga, Murkata and Mayong. These villagers had been residing in the area even before Independence. Mr. Kohli had justified that the notification was withdrawn only to correct this error.
