Madhya Pradesh High Court, with its main seat at Jabalpur, has rejected a petition seeking a ban on tourism in core zones and critical tiger habitats (CTHs) of forest reserves. Ajay Dubey of Prayatna, a Bhopal-based NGO working for environment protection for the past 10 years, had filed the PIL to protect tigers from alleged disturbance caused by tourism.
National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Madhya Pradesh government and others were the respondents in the petition filed on September 8 last year. Dubey had sought relief to protect tigers by banning tourism as per NTCA guidelines that call for keeping these areas completely inviolate except for management intervention.
A division bench of justices Ajit Singh and Sanjay Yadav ruled that NTCA emphasised on phasing out of ongoing tourism activities in the core areas or CTHs. Even the guidelines issued by the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) speak only about the phasing out the ongoing tourism activities and not its immediate banning in these areas. The respondents- MP government, chief wildlife warden, NTCA and others- too denied that amended Wildlife Protection Act 1972 mandated complete prohibition of tourism activity in the core or CTH areas.
The respondents further stated that there was continuous dialogue with the NTCA and the matter was likely to be resolved to mutual satisfaction. The MP government also narrated in detail about the importance and advantages of tourism in tiger reserves and produced a press statement of May 5, 2010, issued by the MoEF denying any proposal to prohibit tourism in tiger reserves.
The court ruled that Section 38-v too did not prohibit tourism either in core or CTH areas. The expression in the explanation that core or CTH were required to be kept as inviolate for the purposes of tiger conservation did not indicate a complete ban on tourism, the bench said.
"The word 'inviolate' used also did not imply complete prohibition or banning of tourism. Inviolate is defined by approved lexicographers to mean 'unhurt', uninjured; unpolluted; unbroken," the court ruled.
Reacting to verdict, Dubey told TOI, "We will not give up. The fight to protect tigers will continue. Prayatna will file a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court." He said the word 'inviolate' had to be read in context of notification of the core or CTH by the government. It meant without any disturbance by human beings, he said. Tourism activity in such areas would mean violation of the NTCA guidelines, he added.
National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Madhya Pradesh government and others were the respondents in the petition filed on September 8 last year. Dubey had sought relief to protect tigers by banning tourism as per NTCA guidelines that call for keeping these areas completely inviolate except for management intervention.
A division bench of justices Ajit Singh and Sanjay Yadav ruled that NTCA emphasised on phasing out of ongoing tourism activities in the core areas or CTHs. Even the guidelines issued by the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) speak only about the phasing out the ongoing tourism activities and not its immediate banning in these areas. The respondents- MP government, chief wildlife warden, NTCA and others- too denied that amended Wildlife Protection Act 1972 mandated complete prohibition of tourism activity in the core or CTH areas.
The respondents further stated that there was continuous dialogue with the NTCA and the matter was likely to be resolved to mutual satisfaction. The MP government also narrated in detail about the importance and advantages of tourism in tiger reserves and produced a press statement of May 5, 2010, issued by the MoEF denying any proposal to prohibit tourism in tiger reserves.
The court ruled that Section 38-v too did not prohibit tourism either in core or CTH areas. The expression in the explanation that core or CTH were required to be kept as inviolate for the purposes of tiger conservation did not indicate a complete ban on tourism, the bench said.
"The word 'inviolate' used also did not imply complete prohibition or banning of tourism. Inviolate is defined by approved lexicographers to mean 'unhurt', uninjured; unpolluted; unbroken," the court ruled.
Reacting to verdict, Dubey told TOI, "We will not give up. The fight to protect tigers will continue. Prayatna will file a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court." He said the word 'inviolate' had to be read in context of notification of the core or CTH by the government. It meant without any disturbance by human beings, he said. Tourism activity in such areas would mean violation of the NTCA guidelines, he added.
0 comments:
Post a Comment