Address pilgrims’ concerns inside tiger habitats, SC tells Rajasthan govt

Court said that the sentiments of people visiting temples in tiger habitats must be given “due consideration” while protecting the sanctuary

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the religious sentiments of people visiting temples in tiger habitats must be given “due consideration” while protecting the sanctuary.

The Court extended the private vehicle ban deadline to March 2026, tasking the committee with finding a balanced solution to protect both the tiger reserve and devotees. (HT File)

The Court directed the Rajasthan government to form a committee to address the concerns of pilgrims visiting a temple inside the Sariska Tiger Reserve before phasing out private vehicle movement within the sanctuary.

The movement of private vehicles carrying pilgrims was set to end by March 2025, following a recommendation by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to protect the critical tiger habitat. The traffic contributed to pollution, disrupted the ecology, and facilitated poachers’ access to the area.

While the Rajasthan government planned to implement the CEC’s recommendation by offering 20 electric buses for pilgrims, the Hanuman Pandupole Temple Trust argued that this would be insufficient for the thousands of visitors, especially on Tuesdays, Saturdays, and festival days.

A bench led by justice Bhushan R. Gavai acknowledged that while tiger reserve protection was essential, the religious sentiments of the devotees also mattered.

Advocate Ashok Gaur, representing the Trust, argued that the proposed solution failed to address the needs of the 6,000-7,000 weekly visitors who come to offer ‘prasad’ in devotion, claiming the ban would prevent them from fulfilling their religious observances.

The bench, including justice K.V. Viswanathan, called for a practical approach to avoid law-and-order issues. It instructed the formation of a three-member committee, led by the collector of Sariska, to consider a phased ban on private vehicles while addressing the concerns of pilgrims.

Since the CEC’s deadline of March 2025 left little time for the committee to make decisions, the Court extended all deadlines by a year, moving the private vehicle ban to March 2026. The committee was tasked with finding a balanced solution to protect both the tiger reserve and the devotees.

The Court also spoke a similar issue at Ranthambore Tiger Reserve, where pilgrims visit a Ganesh temple in the reserve’s core area, suggesting similar orders may be needed there in the future.

Rajasthan’s additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati assured the Court that the state was sensitive to the concerns of pilgrims and would minimize their difficulties while addressing the ecological concerns.

Senior advocate K. Parmeshwar, assisting as amicus curiae, informed the bench that poachers had exploited the lack of restrictions in Sariska. The CEC recommended closing one entry point to reduce poaching, which the bench agreed with, emphasising that genuine pilgrims should not be stopped.

The CEC also recommended rationalising the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) in Sariska to align with tiger breeding patterns. The Court allowed the state to implement this recommendation, following the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, while considering concerns from environmentalists and private miners affected by the expansion. However, the Court made it clear that any changes to the sanctuary’s boundaries would require its final approval.