The Supreme Court recently highlighted the pressing issue of animal-human conflicts and its implications for forest conservation. Justice B.R. Gavai stressed the need for a delicate balance between the rights of both stakeholders, emphasizing that the well-being of forests and wildlife is inextricably linked to the resolution of these conflicts.
The court’s observations emerged during the hearing of a case pertaining to the delineation of boundaries for Assam’s Pobitora wildlife sanctuary, which harbors a significant rhino population. The case also involved the settlement of rights for marginalized communities, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and backward groups, residing within the sanctuary.
The Assam government, represented by senior advocate Nalin Kohli, informed the court that it had established a dedicated committee, chaired by the Chief Secretary (Forests), tasked with surveying and proposing boundary adjustments to safeguard the interests of both wildlife and human inhabitants. A preliminary survey and map of the sanctuary have already been completed.
The court instructed that the state’s proposals, including boundary modifications, must be approved by the National Board of Wildlife and subjected to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. It further directed the inclusion of the Chief Wildlife Warden and Field Director of the Pobitora wildlife sanctuary as members of the special committee to represent the concerns of wildlife.
Justice Gavai acknowledged the importance of environmental protection but emphasized the need to consider the human dimension of the issue. He remarked, “You have to take into consideration the human angle. You cannot exist only for animals.” His statement was made in response to an intervention by an environmental activist.
Previously, on March 13, the apex court had stayed the Assam government’s decision to denotify the Pobitora wildlife sanctuary. The court had ruled that the state government’s move to withdraw the notification dated March 17, 1998, establishing the sanctuary was improper and ordered a halt to further actions in this regard.
The Assam government had claimed that the sanctuary was declared unilaterally by the Forest Department without consulting the Revenue Department or the Chief Minister. It also argued that the rights of villagers residing in the area, such as Thengabhanga, Murkata, and Mayong, had not been adequately addressed prior to the sanctuary’s establishment. These villagers have been residing in the area since before India’s independence. Mr. Kohli justified the withdrawal of the notification as an attempt to rectify this oversight.
