SAVING THE STRIPES: SUPREME COURT’S INTERVENTION IN RATHAMBORE

The proper use of science is not to conquer nature but to live in it. – Barry Commoner

INTRODUCTION

The Ranthambore Tiger Reserve (RTR) is one of India’s most iconic wildlife sanctuaries. It is facing a serious crisis, which includes a rise in the number of tourists visiting it and illegal mining. This seriously threatens its fragile ecosystem. Inside the reserve, Trinetra Ganesha Temple is located, which attracts thousands of devotees every week. This adds to the pollution and disturbs the habitat. At the same time, unchecked and illegal mining activities degraded critical tiger habitats and also violate environmental laws. 

On 30 May 2025, the Supreme Court intervened and constituted a three-member committee to regulate the influx of pilgrims. The court also directed the state government of Rajasthan to stop all illegal mining taking place in the reserve. But what empowers the Supreme Court to issue such directives? Are these orders legally binding? And what are the broader environmental implications of this decision?

This blog discusses the constitutional foundations that enabled the Supreme Court’s intervention. It also examines the binding nature of the orders of the Supreme Court in the context and analyses the reasons behind protecting Ranthambore Tiger Reserve. 

BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE

On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India took up the petition filed by Sanjay Kumar, who is an environmental activist. The court agreed that the conditions in the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve had significantly worsened. The petition had highlighted many issues that were causing environmental as well as biodiversity issues, such as the unregulated influx of pilgrims and devotees at Trishnetra Ganesha Temple, which is located inside the reserve. The petition also mentioned that illegal mining has been rampant in the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH). There were also constructions and commercial activities in the reserve, which are illegal in nature. The notification of Eco-Sensitive Zones was also delayed around the reserve and historic structures were being neglected. 

Responding to the petition, the Supreme Court made a committee which comprised of Sawai Madhopur, the District Collector, the Field Director of the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve, and a nominee from the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The committee’s task is to come up with solutions to the problems faced by Ranthambore Tiger Reserve and to address how religious practice can be balanced with environmental preservation. Additionally, the court gave a notice to the Rajasthan government to put a stop to all illegal mining activities happening inside the reserve area. The court gave them 6 months time to submit an action report on the matter. 

The court also asked the Rajasthan government to stop all mining activities within the reserve’s core area and submit a detailed action report within the stipulated time. 

CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS BEHIND SC’S DIRECTION

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve case was an action that is rooted in the Constitution of India. The Court derives its authority from multiple constitutional provisions, ensuring that its directives carry the weight of law.

1. Article 142- The power to do complete justice 

The most important provision behind the court’s intervention is Article 142. It grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any necessary order to ensure complete justice.  This authority is unique because it allows the judiciary to step in even when existing laws are silent or inadequate. In the Ranthambore case, the court invoked Article 142. This provision has been previously used in the landmark environmental cases of Taj Trapezium Zone litigation (where industries near the Taj Mahal were ordered to relocate) and the Sariska mining ban (where the SC prohibited mining near tiger habitats). 

2. Article 21- Right to life includes the right to a healthy environment

The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to a clean and sustainable environment. In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the court ruled that air free of pollution and clean water are essential for a dignified life. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), the Court declared that the right against adverse effects of climate change is a part of fundamental rights under Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the Ranthambore case, the court’s order upholds these principles by protecting tiger habitats and preventing environmental degradation. 

The intervention of the Supreme Court also aligns with Article 48A (Duty of the state to protect and improve the environment) and Article 51A (duty of the citizens to safeguard forests and wildlife) by holding the Rajasthan government accountable and asking the pilgrims and tourists to act responsibly, respectively. 

The Supreme Court’s order draws its strength from judicial precedents as well. In Sariska Tiger Reserve Case (2023), the SC set the precedent for banning mining in tiger habitats. In Asad Rahmani v. Union of India (2016), the court upheld ESZ around the protected areas. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), the court established that ecology should be prioritised over commerce. 

WHETHER SC’S DIRECTION IN THIS IS BINDING

One of the important questions is whether this direction given by the Supreme Court is binding on the Rajasthan government. The answer is yes, SC’s directive is legally binding, and non-compliance with the same will lead to contempt of court proceedings. 

Past instances tell us that states face consequences for ignoring or not following the judicial orders, such as heavy fines and suspension of licenses. In Ranthambore itself, the SC warned the state against delays in implementing conservation measures. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF SC’S INTERVENTION

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Ranthambore tiger reserve comes at a critical time when its fragile ecosystem was being pushed to the brink. Now, we will focus on the environmental threats around SC’s intervention. 

1. Threats to the Ranthambore’s ecosystem

The Trinetra Ganesha Temple is situated inside the reserve and many visitors come to the reserve to worship the same. The influx has been on the rise which has led to significant degradation of the habitat and much of it is trampled by the visitors' footsteps. Not to mention, it also disturbed the wildlife. The visitors have also brought the problem of plastic pollution and also cause noise pollution. 

One more threat to the ecosystem is all the mining that takes place there. It leads to depletion of groundwater and has increased the conflict between humans and animals. 

2. Environmental laws violations

The activities that take place in the Ranthambore tiger reserve violates many laws. One being that mining in the critical tiger habitat violates the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Unauthorized land use (such as temporary shelters and shops within the reserve) violates the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and pollution caused by activities of the pilgrims and tourists violates the Environment Protection Act, 1986. 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT’S ORDERS

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve case is important for many reasons. The Court’s stand brings to light the role of judiciary in protecting the environment and upholding of fundamental rights of citizens. It sets a precedent on how to deal with similar cases in the future. By constituting a committee involving local officials and stakeholders, the Court has promoted decentralized and participatory governance in the management of the environmental issue.

CHALLENGES AND THE WAY FORWARD

The Supreme Court’s intervention is an important step towards protecting the Ranthambore Tiger Reserve and perhaps many other places in the future. Yet a big challenge remains regarding turning these judicial directions into execution and finally conserving the environment successfully. 

There are many who advocate for mining in the reserve given it supports livelihoods. Temple authorities argue that restricting pilgrim access will infringe on religious freedom, which will create legal challenges. Officials accept bribes to prolong enforcement or to allow illegal mining. 

Despite the challenges, some solutions can be used, such as hidden cameras to catch illegal mining or using satellite imaging to conduct land use change audits. Crowd control apps can be used to move the flow of pilgrims. 

CONCLUSION

The Ranthambore case represents more than a local environmental dispute. It is a test for India to balance development with ecological protection. As the 3-member committee begins its work, all eyes are on whether this becomes another case of "too little, too late" or evolves into a replicable model for India's 53 tiger reserves. The next six months will decide the fate of this intervention. 

AUTHOR: SARGUN SINGH

REFERENCES

1. Unknown, SUPREME COURT CONTROLS CROWDING AT RANTHAMBORE TIGER RESERVE, The Low Gist (Available at: https://thelawgist.org/supreme-court-controls-crowding-at-ranthambore-tiger-reserve/)
2. Ajay Singh Ugras, SC panel's lens on encroachments in Ranthambore, Times of India, June 4, 2025. (Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-panel-lens-on-encroachments-in-ranthambore/articleshow/121606930.cms) 
3. Anmol Kaur Bawa, Supreme Court Constitutes Committee To Control Crowding At Ranthambore Tiger Reserve, Balance Interests Of Trinetra Temple Devotees, LiveLaw, June 4, 2025. (Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ranthambore-tiger-reserve-mining-overcrowding-trinetra-temple-devotees-294248) 
4. Abraham Thomas, SC directs Raj to ban illegal mining in Ranthambore, Hindustan Times, June 4, 2025. (Available at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sc-directs-raj-to-ban-illegal-mining-in-ranthambore-101748977006535.html) 
5. Supreme Court Orders Appointment Of Nodal Officer To Deal With Complaints Of Illegal Mining Near Sariska Tiger Reserve, Verdictium News Desk, March 19, 2025. (Available at: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-appointment-of-nodal-officer-to-deal-with-complaints-of-illegal-mining-near-sariskatigerreserve-1571618) 
6. SC Halts All Mining Around Sariska Tiger Reserve, Citing Environmental Concerns, The law advice, May 15, 2024. (Available on: https://www.thelawadvice.com/news/sc-halts-all-mining-around-sariska-tiger-reserve-citing-environmental-concerns) 
7. Monalisha Sethi, Sariska Tiger Reserve| Supreme Court Stops Mining Activities, Law Chakra, May 15, 2024. (Available at: https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/sariska-tiger-reserve-supreme-court-stop-mining/) 
8. https://article.wn.com/view/2025/05/27/Illegal_mining_in_Ranthambore_SC_warns_Rajasthan_of_contempt/ 
9. https://www.nammakpsc.com/affairs/supreme-courts-decision-on-mining-activities-at-sariska-tiger-reserve/ 
10. Rohan Naik, CASE COMMENT: SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES ON-RECORD
11. ASSN. V. UNION OF INDIA 2016, A Creative Connect International Publication, Volume 4, Issue 1, (2018), pp. 126-130. 
12. M.K. Ranjitsinh vs Union Of India, AIR 2024, INSC 280