New Delhi: Calling the presence of nearly 400 spotted deer in a facility designed for barely a few dozen “grave cruelty”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday signalled its approval for relocating the animals from Delhi’s AN Jha Deer Park to forest ranges identified by its court-appointed expert panel.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, hearing the long-running dispute over the translocation of deer from the Hauz Khas enclosure, said that the scale of overcrowding itself warranted urgent corrective steps in line with the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
“The capacity is probably of 34, and presently there are 400 deer in that park, which is, by itself, grave cruelty. So, we will ask the authorities to proceed as per the CEC for relocation,” observed the bench, referring to the panel’s findings.
The court’s remarks came as it was informed that the CEC has submitted its report following an on-ground assessment ordered in November last year, when the bench had halted further translocation citing a “distressing pattern of negligence” by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
The March 6 report of the CEC has painted a stark picture of ecological stress within the urban enclosure, concluding that the park’s scientifically assessed carrying capacity is around 38 deer — a fraction of the current population.
{{/usCountry}}The March 6 report of the CEC has painted a stark picture of ecological stress within the urban enclosure, concluding that the park’s scientifically assessed carrying capacity is around 38 deer — a fraction of the current population.
{{/usCountry}}Relying on Central Zoo Authority (CZA) norms, the panel calculated that the usable enclosure area of approximately 29,000 square metres can sustainably accommodate only about 19 deer pairs. In contrast, current estimates place the population at around 400, even after 261 deer were translocated to Rajasthan between 2023 and 2025.
The report flagged clear signs of habitat degradation, including overgrazing, soil compaction and loss of ground vegetation, warning that long-term animal welfare and ecological sustainability were impossible without drastically reducing the population.
It recommended retaining only a limited number of deer at the park , subject to habitat improvements and restoration of its “mini-zoo” status, while shifting the rest in a phased manner to wildlife reserves such as Ramgarh Vishdhari Tiger Reserve and Mukundara Hills Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan.
The panel also endorsed translocation as a legitimate conservation tool, noting that releasing herbivores into predator landscapes is a recognised practice and that natural predation forms part of ecological balance.
At the same time, the CEC pointed to serious procedural gaps in earlier relocation efforts, including the absence of microchipping or tagging, which made it difficult to track survival rates of the translocated deer.
This concern found echo in the court’s observations on Tuesday, with the bench pointing out that previous attempts had resulted in minimal survival rates -- one of the reasons the bench had stepped in last year to halt further transfers and order a fresh scientific assessment.
In November 2025, the Supreme Court had set aside a Delhi High Court order declining to intervene in the functioning of the deer park, and tasked the CEC with examining key issues including actual population, ecological capacity, and the fate of animals already shifted to Rajasthan. The court had also directed the DDA to explain the reduction in the park’s area and restrained it from leasing the space for commercial events.
During Tuesday’s hearing, counsel for the petitioners – New Delhi Nature Society, questioned the composition of the CEC, arguing that it lacked adequate representation from independent expert bodies and that parts of the report were internally inconsistent, particularly in its criticism of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) while simultaneously recommending that the DDA fund it. Advocates Rukhsana Choudhury and Amita Singh also flagged broader concerns about what she described as a growing “culture of land banks” where animals are shifted based on administrative convenience.
The bench, however, indicated that its primary concern remained the welfare of the animals. “Ultimately, it is between the court and the authorities as to what directions are to be given. We could have upheld the order of the Delhi High Court straightaway, but we were concerned about the wildlife; that is why we have taken the matter,” it said.
The court granted two weeks to the petitioners to file written submissions, with two weeks for the DDA to respond thereafter, and reserved its order on the next course of action.