CURRENT AFFAIRS | 16 JULY 2026
The Supreme Court has cleared the Uttar Pradesh government’s ambitious night safari and zoological park project in the Kukrail Reserve Forest in Lucknow, while insisting that every environmental condition be scrupulously honoured. The order is a compact lesson in how India’s forest-governance architecture works.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the project had already secured the approvals of the Central Zoo Authority (CZA), the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). Having satisfied itself that the regulatory chain was complete, the Court permitted the project to proceed but directed the state to meticulously follow the conditions imposed by the CEC and the other authorities — a conditional clearance rather than a blank cheque.
The legal scaffolding is worth unpacking. Because Kukrail is a reserve forest, any diversion of its land for a non-forest purpose — such as a safari or zoo — is governed by the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which requires prior central approval before forest land is put to non-forest use. The zoological dimension brings in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, under which the Central Zoo Authority is a statutory body constituted under Section 38A, tasked with recognising and regulating zoos.
The most distinctive actor here is the Central Empowered Committee. The CEC is not a creature of statute; it was constituted by the Supreme Court itself in the long-running forest litigation, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. That case transformed the Court into a continuing supervisor of forests across the country, issuing directions over decades in what is known as a continuing mandamus. The CEC advises the Court on forest and wildlife matters and monitors compliance, which is why its conditions carry such weight.
By green-lighting Kukrail subject to strict compliance, the Court balanced development ambitions against ecological safeguards — reaffirming that in India’s forests, permission and conditions travel together.
🏛️ Constitutional / Legal Framework
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Requires prior central approval before forest land is diverted to non-forest use.
- Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Governs zoos; the Central Zoo Authority is constituted under Section 38A.
- Central Empowered Committee (CEC): Court-constituted body advising the Supreme Court on forest and wildlife compliance.
- T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India: The forest litigation establishing the Court’s continuing mandamus over forests.
- Reserve forest: A category of protected forest whose diversion needs statutory and judicial clearance.
⚖️ Why This Matters for CLAT
Environment law is a rich CLAT vein. This story lets aspirants distinguish statutory authorities (the CZA under the WLPA) from court-created ones (the CEC from Godavarman), and to grasp the Forest (Conservation) Act’s control over non-forest use of forest land. The idea of a continuing mandamus — the Court supervising an issue over years — is a recurring legal-reasoning theme.
📌 Key Facts
| Project | Night safari & zoological park |
| Location | Kukrail Reserve Forest, Lucknow (UP) |
| Bench | CJI Surya Kant & Justice Joymalya Bagchi |
| Approvals cited | CZA, Environment Ministry, CEC |
| Key statutes | FC Act 1980; WLP Act 1972 (s. 38A) |
| CEC origin | T.N. Godavarman litigation (court-created) |
| Court’s direction | Meticulous compliance with CEC conditions |
The Kukrail clearance shows the Supreme Court’s enduring role as the ultimate custodian of India’s forests — allowing progress only on the terms that conservation demands.
🧠 Memory Aid
“Godavarman guards the green” — the CEC (from Godavarman), the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 together shield every reserve forest.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
