No State can block traditional routes of elephants: Supreme Court
Impeding elephant corridors is not a solution to human-animal conflicts, says SC; it directs Centre to conduct a national survey to remove obstructions from routes and ensure a ban on the use of fireballs and spikes to drive away elephants
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The has directed the Union Government to conduct a nationwide survey to ensure the unhindered movement of wild elephant herds across their traditional corridors. The Court emphasized that no state can block these migratory paths, asserting that human-animal conflict must be addressed through alternative solutions rather than creating obstacles. The Court also reiterated its 2018 ban on the barbaric practice of using fireballs and spikes to deter elephants, demanding a status report on the implementation of these directives.
UPSC Perspectives
Environmental
This judgment underscores the critical ecological importance of elephant corridors, which are narrow strips of forested land connecting larger habitats, essential for the genetic viability and survival of the species. Elephants are wide-ranging animals, often migrating across multiple states (e.g., from to , or to ). Fragmenting these habitats through human encroachment or state-erected barriers exacerbates human-wildlife conflict (HWC) as herds are forced into human-dominated landscapes in search of food and water. Under the , the Indian elephant is listed in Schedule I, granting it the highest degree of legal protection and making practices like the use of 'hula' parties (using fireballs and spikes) entirely illegal. UPSC candidates should connect this to the broader goals of Project Elephant, launched in 1992 to protect elephants, their habitats, and corridors, and to address issues of man-animal conflict.
Polity
The 's directive highlights the principle of cooperative federalism in environmental governance. By declaring that 'no state can block their paths,' the Court implicitly rejects a compartmentalized, state-centric approach to wildlife conservation, recognizing that ecological boundaries do not align with political borders. While 'Forests' and 'Protection of Wild Animals and Birds' are in the Concurrent List (moved from the State List by the ), the Court asserts the paramountcy of a unified national strategy for migratory species. This judicial intervention is a manifestation of judicial activism in environmental protection, often rooted in the expansive interpretation of (Right to Life), which the Court has previously interpreted to include a healthy environment and, by extension, the protection of wildlife. The directive mandates the Union Government to ensure state compliance, reinforcing the central oversight role in wildlife conservation.
Geographical
The spatial distribution of elephants and their migration routes are key geographical concepts. The article mentions specific cross-border movements, such as from through to , and between , , and . These movements highlight the necessity of transboundary conservation approaches. The fragmentation of these contiguous landscapes, often due to linear infrastructure development (highways, railways) and agricultural expansion, forces elephants into 'sink' habitats where mortality rates are higher. For UPSC, mapping major elephant reserves (like or ) and their intersecting corridors is crucial. The judgment's focus on a nationwide survey implies the need for updated spatial data to effectively manage these corridors and mitigate conflict in areas where traditional routes intersect with expanding human habitations.