National Green Tribunal Dismisses Kaziranga Hotel Petition

In a recent ruling, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Eastern Bench dismissed a petition concerning the construction of two five-star hotels adjacent to Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve (KNPTR). The decision, made on February 21, 2025, followed a suo motu petition prompted by a news report denoting potential impacts on local communities and wildlife. Legal experts and local activists have expressed concerns over the NGT’s approach to the case.

Background of the Case

The Assam government signed memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with Hyatt Group and Tata Group for luxury hotels near KNPTR. The Hyatt project aims to develop a 120-room hotel at Inlay Pathar with an investment of Rs 100 crore. The Tata project involves a five-star Taj Resort and Spa near Hatikhuli Tea Garden, costing Rs 120 crore. Local residents fear displacement due to these developments.

Legal Proceedings and Decisions

The NGT dismissed the original application, citing that concerns raised were premature. The bench, led by Justice B Amit Sthalekar, stated that no detailed project report had been submitted for review. The Assam government argued that the proposed hotel sites are outside the one-kilometre buffer zone of KNPTR and do not intersect with animal corridors.

Concerns from Local Communities

Local farmers, including Geeta Gowala, expressed anxiety over losing ancestral lands. They have claimed these lands have been cultivated for generations and are crucial for local wildlife during floods. Activists argue that the NGT’s ruling disregards the complexities of land rights and environmental regulations.

Judicial Activism and Criticism

Critics, including environmental lawyers, have labelled the NGT’s actions as misplaced judicial activism. They argue that the tribunal should have involved local stakeholders in the decision-making process. The NGT relied heavily on affidavits from the Assam government and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, which some believe oversimplified the situation.

Environmental and Regulatory Context

The eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around KNPTR has not yet been officially declared. The Ministry of Environment has indicated that a tourism plan for KNPTR is still pending. The absence of a defined ESZ complicates the planning of tourism infrastructure, as it is essential for balancing development and conservation.

Implications for Future Developments

The NGT’s ruling raises questions about the future of tourism projects in sensitive ecological areas. Local organisations, such as the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Committee, have expressed discontent with the decision, demanding accountability from the Assam government and the cancellation of the hotel projects.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the National Green Tribunal’s dismissal of the Kaziranga hotel petition on local communities and wildlife.
2. Explain the significance of eco-sensitive zones in India. What challenges do they face in implementation and enforcement?
3. What are the potential impacts of luxury tourism on biodiversity in protected areas like Kaziranga National Park? Provide suitable examples.
4. What is the role of judicial activism in environmental protection? Discuss with reference to the recent NGT ruling on Kaziranga.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the implications of the National Green Tribunal’s dismissal of the Kaziranga hotel petition on local communities and wildlife.

1. The dismissal may lead to the construction of hotels, risking displacement of local communities who have cultivated the land for generations.
2. Wildlife, including rhinos and elephants, may be adversely affected as their habitats could be encroached upon by tourism infrastructure.
3. Local voices and concerns were largely ignored in the decision-making process, raising issues of justice and representation.
4. The ruling sets a precedent for prioritizing development over environmental and community concerns in sensitive areas.
5. Potential loss of livelihoods for local farmers could exacerbate socio-economic challenges in the region.

2. Explain the significance of eco-sensitive zones in India. What challenges do they face in implementation and enforcement?

1. Eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) serve to protect biodiversity and ecosystems around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
2. They regulate development activities to minimize human-wildlife conflict and conserve natural habitats.
3. Challenges include lack of clear definitions and boundaries, leading to confusion over enforcement.
4. Political and economic pressures often prioritize development over conservation, undermining ESZ objectives.
5. Insufficient public awareness and participation in the ESZ designation process can lead to inadequate protection measures.

3. What are the potential impacts of luxury tourism on biodiversity in protected areas like Kaziranga National Park? Provide suitable examples.

1. Luxury tourism can lead to habitat fragmentation, disrupting animal migration and breeding patterns.
2. The influx of tourists may increase pollution and waste, negatively affecting local ecosystems.
3. Examples include increased human-wildlife conflict as animals venture closer to developed areas in search of food.
4. Infrastructure development can encroach on critical habitats, threatening endangered species like the Indian rhinoceros.
5. Over-tourism can strain local resources, impacting both wildlife and the communities that depend on these ecosystems.

4. What is the role of judicial activism in environmental protection? Discuss with reference to the recent NGT ruling on Kaziranga.

1. Judicial activism can help enforce environmental laws and protect ecosystems by addressing grievances that may be overlooked by authorities.
2. The NGT’s ruling reflects a proactive approach but has been criticized for lacking comprehensive stakeholder engagement.
3. Activism can raise awareness about environmental issues, prompting government action; however, it may also lead to backlash if perceived as overreach.
4. The NGT’s reliance on government affidavits marks the need for balanced judicial scrutiny in environmental matters.
5. Effective judicial activism should incorporate local voices and scientific evidence to ensure sustainable outcomes.