Rajasthan’s Wildlife Boundaries Under Siege: Judicial Pushback and Ecological Alarm

Rajasthan wildlife boundaries are once again under scrutiny as the state’s recent attempts to redraw sanctuary and tiger reserve limits have sparked judicial intervention and ecological concern. The move, framed as “rationalisation,” has led to widespread debate over conservation priorities and governance transparency.

Why the Controversy?

Redrawing Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve Lines

The Rajasthan government initiated boundary revisions for sanctuaries including Nahargarh, Sariska, and Ranthambore. The revised maps reportedly exclude several zones previously under protection, trimming buffer zones or eco-sensitive areas.

In Nahargarh, a July 2025 forest department order redefined sanctuary limits and its eco-sensitive zone (ESZ). Critics argue this excluded vital terrain originally notified in 1980 and reaffirmed in 2019 — potentially paving the way for hotels, real estate or infrastructure projects.

At Sariska, the plan is even more contentious: the “rationalisation” would increase the Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) from ~881 sq km to ~924 sq km, while reducing its buffer zone from ~245 sq km to ~203 sq km. The Indian Express+2The Wire+2 But critics warn that many excluded peripheral areas are corridors or patches crucial for ecological connectivity — and some of those exclusions could allow reopening of mines previously barred by court orders.

Legal & Procedural Concerns

Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, any modification to sanctuary or core habitat boundaries must gain approval from the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).  Courts have questioned whether such clearances were sought.

In multiple instances, the pace of approvals alarmed the judiciary. In the Sariska case, the Rajasthan State Wildlife Board, NTCA, and the NBWL standing committee endorsement all came within 48 hours — a speed the Supreme Court found “mockery of the system.” The Wire+2Hindustan Times+2 The apex court rebuked expert bodies for acting like a “post office” in approving boundary changes haphazardly. Hindustan Times+1

In Nahargarh, the Rajasthan High Court stayed the revised boundary order and ordered affidavits from the state and central governments, demanding clarification. India Today+2The Times of India+2

Ecological Stakes and Risks

Fragmentation of Habitat & Corridor Loss

When protected areas lose buffer zones or corridors are severed, wildlife — especially large mammals like tigers — lose movement routes, face inbreeding, and increased risk of human–wildlife conflict. The proposed exclusions at Nahargarh and Sariska threaten connectivity in the Aravalli ranges and adjoining forests.

Building a road or dam through core zones (as proposed in some plans) could split habitats and further isolate populations. In Ranthambore, a bridge project through the core zone drew NBWL’s rejection for undermining tiger corridor integrity.

Resumption of Mining & Commercial Activity

One major concern: boundary “rationalisation” may allow over 50 marble and dolomite mines that were earlier shut under Supreme Court orders to restart operations near Sariska.  Many of the excluded zones lie in mineral-rich areas. The Indian Express+1

Similarly, parts of the revised Nahargarh maps appear to benefit luxury hotels and constructions already in or near erstwhile protected zones. PARYAWARAN+4India Today+4The Times of India+4

Undermining Conservation Credibility

When protections are diluted, it sets a dangerous precedent: other states might also seek “rationalisation” as a backdoor route to development. The core principle of environmental law — the precautionary principle — is at stake.

Judicial & Institutional Pushback

• The Rajasthan High Court has halted boundary changes in Nahargarh until legal clarity is provided.

• The Supreme Court accepted petitions challenging the Sariska changes.

• The apex court pulled up expert bodies (NTCA, NBWL) for hasty approvals, sending the matter back for reconsideration.

The courts have underscored that any boundary redefinition must follow transparent, consultative processes — with proper drafts, public objections, scientific data review — rather than being forced through administrative fiat.

What Next?

1. Judiciary Review
   The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearings will test whether state-level boundary revisions without due environmental process can hold.

2. Scientific & Public Consultations
   Any rationalisation must rely on robust ecology and connectivity studies, and invite objections from citizens and stakeholders.

3. Safeguards for Core Zones
   Development projects must steer clear of core critical habitat areas. Buffer zones must remain intact.

4. Watchdog Vigilance
   Conservation NGOs, local communities and experts must continue to monitor maps, approvals, and on-ground implementation.