Right so Indigenous people to exploit the local resources for their basic means of livelihood

Animal and Environmenat Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India, 1997(2) SCALE 493.

A.M.Ahamadi, CJ, Sujata Manohar and Venkataswamy, JJ.

Wild life (protection)Act, 1972 and

Sec. 26(1) (i) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

The petition challenges the granting of 305 fishing permits to the tribals of the Pench National Park in the Totladoh Reservoir by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Forest Department, Government of MP. The Pench National Park is a Reserved Forest. Under the Forest Act, 1927 once a area is notified as reserved a right can be acquired in it only by succession. It was contended that the ancestors of the tribals held no such right and thus the permits given in pursuance of such rights were wrongly issued.

The Court considered Art. 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Under Sec. 33 (e) of the Act the Chief Warden had the power to "regulate any fishing". This power was taken away by an amendment. But the Court held that the permits had been granted to the tribals in lieu of their traditional fishing rights before the area was declared a reserved forest and thus Sec. 33 would not apply. Plus, the interests of the tribals must also be kept in mind. Though it might have been preferable to provide the tribals with other fishing grounds, the permits were held valid in law. However, the Courts imposed certain restriction such that fishing will be banned in the rainy months and so on.

The Court held that under sec. 33 (3) of the Wild Life (Protection ) Act [as it stood prior to its amendment in 1991, has been deleted by the amendment made in Sec. 33 in 1991], every attempt must be made to preserve the fragile ecology of the forest area, and protect the Tiger Reserve, the right of the tribals formerly living in the area to keep body and soul together must receive proper consideration. Further the Court held that effort should be made to ensure that the tribals when resettled, are in a positive to earn livelihood.

Further the court directed the State Government to act with a sense of urgency in matters enjoined by Art. 48A of the constitution keeping in mind the duty enshrined in Art. 51A (g).