SC halts deer relocation from Hauz Khas park, orders ecological audit

The SC said a “scientifically grounded evaluation was imperative”, citing a lack of reliable records on current deer population, their survival status, and the ecological readiness for future relocation.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered an independent, on-ground survey of Delhi’s AN Jha Deer Park in Hauz Khas, flagging overcrowding of deer, chronic resource constraints and persistent managerial lapses in the 10.97-acre captive enclosure. The court also barred the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from carrying out any further deer translocation or hosting “any commercial events, private parties or non-conservation activities” in the park’s ecological zone and buffer.

The court has tasked the CEC to conduct the survey and submit a report within eight weeks. (Sanjeev Verma/HT photo)

A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said a “scientifically grounded evaluation was imperative”, citing a lack of reliable records on the current deer population, the number already moved to release sites, their survival status, and the ecological readiness for future relocation.

The court has now tasked the central empowered committee (CEC), functioning under the Environment (Protection) Act, to conduct the survey and submit a report within eight weeks. The panel will count the current deer stock, assess the park’s ecological carrying capacity, determine “the maximum number of deer that can be sustainably retained”, inspect release sites at the Ramgarh Vishdhari and Mukundra Hills Tiger Reserves, and draft a roadmap for any future translocation.

The case stems from a New Delhi Nature Society petition challenging the Delhi High Court orders in July 2024 and January 2025 that allowed the translocation of hundreds of deer to wildlife sanctuaries and tiger reserves in Rajasthan and within Delhi, ostensibly to resolve overcrowding.

Reviewing evaluation records from 2014 to 2022, the bench noted that the park has been operating “far below statutory standards” for years despite repeated warnings and compliance extensions. Reports between 2014 and 2022 documented sustained non-compliance in enclosure maintenance, veterinary infrastructure, record-keeping, habitat enrichment and monitoring systems, allowing the population to swell unchecked and exceed carrying capacity.

The court said the DDA lacked the veterinary and logistical capacity to manage a herd that has fluctuated between 350 and 600 for over a decade. The enclosure’s spatial limits, compounded by insufficient fodder, water and supervision, were heightening welfare risks such as chronic stress among deer, suppressed immunity and the potential for disease outbreak.

“In such circumstances, scientific population management through regulated translocation was foreseeable and indispensable,” the bench said.

But the court made it clear that alleged irregularities in past relocation efforts — transport of pregnant does, juveniles and antlered stags, crowded loading conditions, the absence of veterinary checks, tagging, and post-release monitoring, and concerns over release-site suitability — “could not be ignored”.

It added that there was no documented proof of genetic screening, tranquilisation protocols, veterinary certification, habitat feasibility studies, or assessment of predator-prey balance and acclimatisation planning for deer released into tiger-occupied reserves. It further lamented that “without post-release surveillance tools such as telemetry or radio chips, the survival rate of translocated deer remains unknown.”

Separately, the bench directed the DDA to explain the “past and present status of land formerly designated for deer enclosures”, including the loss of over 20 acres noted in earlier assessments. It advised shifting outreach away from commercial programming and toward guided nature walks and educational events.

Linking the dispute to wider pressures on urban green spaces, the court stressed that “conservation is not merely relocation but stewardship”, rooted in ecological integrity, dignity and intergenerational equity, protected under Articles 48A, 51A(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

The matter will be heard again on March 17, 2026, when the CEC and DDA reports are expected.