HC raps State over 19-year delay in notifying critical wildlife habitats

The matter stems from the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which mandated state governments to identify and notify CWHs. In 2011, the Centre issued draft guidelines for their identification and notification.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday pulled up the Maharashtra government over the prolonged delay in notifying critical wildlife habitats (CWHs) across the state, observing that it had been “giving various excuses for nearly two decades to keep the issue pending.”

HC raps State over 19-year delay in notifying critical wildlife habitats

The matter stems from the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which mandated state governments to identify and notify CWHs. In 2011, the Centre issued draft guidelines for their identification and notification.

Vanashakti, which filed the petition in 2014, contended that despite the passage of years, the Centre had failed to finalise fresh guidelines, while the state had been “reckless and negligent” in identifying and notifying CWHs and framing the required procedures.

The NGO argued that demarcating inviolate forest areas is essential for wildlife conservation, as human activity in these habitats disrupts animal movement, disturbs ecological balance, increases poaching risks and threatens wildlife populations.

It further submitted that the rise in human-wildlife conflict reflects increasing stress on wildlife habitats. The petition noted that Maharashtra’s forest cover stands at 21%, well below the 33% prescribed under the National Forest Policy. It also cited local extinctions, including the striped hyena and civet cat in Sanjay Gandhi National Park and the Malabar civet in the Western Ghats.

Hearing the matter on Tuesday, a division bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata expressed dissatisfaction over the state’s inaction, noting that 19 years had elapsed since the statutory mandate came into force.

“We are in July 2026. They deliberately keep doing it to keep the issue pending. 19 years have passed. Show us the reason why it has not been implemented yet. If you want, you can put an end to the petition,” the bench observed.

The court also rejected the state’s contention that the exercise had been delayed because the rights of tribal communities residing in the proposed habitats had to be determined.

“It doesn’t take more than a decade to decide,” the bench remarked, directing the Additional Chief Secretary of the forest department to explain why the statutory directions had still not been implemented.