The National Board for Wild Life: A Legal Analysis

The National Board for Wild Life (NBWL): A Legal Analysis of its Constitution, Functions, and Judicial Affirmation in India

Introduction

The conservation and protection of wildlife are paramount concerns within India's environmental jurisprudence. A key institution in this endeavor is the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL). Established under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the NBWL serves as an apex advisory body to the government on matters pertaining to wildlife conservation, policy formulation, and the management of protected areas. This article undertakes a comprehensive legal analysis of the NBWL, drawing upon statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements. It examines the Board's constitution, its mandated functions and powers, the judiciary's interpretation of its role and authority, particularly its primacy in wildlife matters, and its involvement in the environmental clearance process for projects impacting wildlife habitats. The analysis relies extensively on the provided reference materials to delineate the legal framework governing the NBWL and its significance in the Indian environmental governance landscape.

Establishment and Mandate of the National Board for Wild Life

The National Board for Wild Life was constituted by the Central Government following amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA). Specifically, Section 5-A, inserted by the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003), effective from September 22, 2003, authorized the Central Government to constitute the NBWL.[1, 2] The Supreme Court, in Centre For Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union Of India And Others (2003), noted that the statutory period of three months for constituting the Board, which commenced on April 1, 2003, had expired on July 1, 2003. The Court expressed its concern over the delay in constituting such an important body, chaired by the Prime Minister, despite a mandatory statutory timeline.[3]

As per Section 5-A of the WLPA, the Prime Minister is the Chairperson of the National Board for Wild Life, and the Minister in charge of Forests and Wildlife serves as the Vice-Chairperson.[3] This high-level composition underscores the significance attributed to the NBWL in the hierarchy of environmental governance.

Functions and Powers of the National Board for Wild Life

The functions of the National Board are delineated in Section 5-C of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The primary duty of the NBWL is "to promote the conservation and development of wild life and forests by such measures as it thinks fit."[4] Without prejudice to this general duty, Section 5-C(2) enumerates specific measures, including:

  • Framing policies and advising the Central Government and the State Governments on the ways and means of promoting wildlife conservation and effectively controlling poaching and illegal trade of wildlife and its products;[4]
  • Making recommendations on the setting up and management of national parks, sanctuaries, and other protected areas, and on matters relating to restriction of activities in those areas;[4]
  • Carrying out or causing to be carried out impact assessments of various projects and activities on wildlife or its habitat;[1, 4]
  • Reviewing from time to time the progress in the field of wildlife conservation in the country and suggesting measures for improvement;[1, 2]
  • In relation to the measures to be taken for harmonizing the needs of the tribals and other dwellers of the forest with the protection and conservation of wildlife.[2]

Furthermore, Section 5-B of the WLPA authorizes the National Board to constitute a Standing Committee to exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be delegated to it by the Board.[1, 2, 3, 4] The Standing Committee consists of the Vice-Chairperson, the Member-Secretary, and not more than ten members nominated by the Vice-Chairperson from amongst the members of the National Board.[4] The National Board may also constitute other committees, sub-committees, or study groups as necessary.[3, 4]

Judicial Scrutiny and Primacy of NBWL's Opinion

The judiciary has consistently recognized the NBWL as a pivotal body in wildlife conservation. In Centre For Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union Of India (2013), the Supreme Court described the NBWL as "the top most scientific body established to frame policies and advise the Central and State Governments on the ways and means of promoting wild life conservation and to review the progress in the field of wild life conservation in the country and suggesting measures for improvement thereto."[1] This sentiment was reiterated in Bharat Jhunjhunwala v. Union Of India And Others (2019).[2]

Crucially, the courts have emphasized the significant weight to be accorded to the NBWL's opinion. The Supreme Court stated:

"The Central and the State Governments cannot brush aside its opinion without any cogent or acceptable reasons. Legislation in its wisdom has conferred a duty on NBWL to provide conservation and development of wildlife and forests."[1, 2]

The primacy of the NBWL's views over those of the State Boards for Wild Life (SBWL) has also been firmly established. The Supreme Court clarified that "the views of NBWL constituted by the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 5-A of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, have to prevail over the views expressed by SBWL."[1, 2] This is because the duties conferred on the NBWL under Section 5-C are distinct and broader than those conferred on the State Boards under Section 8 of the Act. While the NBWL has a national mandate to promote conservation, frame policies, advise both Central and State governments, and assess projects impacting wildlife, the State Boards primarily advise State Governments on selecting and managing protected areas and formulating state-level policies.[1, 2]

An example of the judiciary upholding NBWL's decision-making is found in the Centre For Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union Of India (2013) case, where the Supreme Court found the NBWL's decision that the Asiatic lion should have a second home to save it from extinction due to potential catastrophes to be justified.[1] The scope of judicial review in matters relating to policy decisions based on NBWL's views was considered, and the primacy of its opinion was affirmed.[2]

NBWL's Role in Environmental Clearances and Project Approvals

The NBWL plays a critical role in the environmental clearance process, particularly for projects located within or near wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and eco-sensitive zones (ESZs). Several judicial orders highlight this function.

In Lsc Infratech Ltd. v. Union Of India (2019), the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directed that cases of stone crusher units and mining operations falling within 10 kms of the Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary (an area considered an ESZ in the absence of a formal notification) be referred to the NBWL for approval, and such operations were stayed pending NBWL approval. The NGT noted that polluting industries are generally prohibited within ESZs.[5]

The Madras High Court, in Usha v. The Union of India (2024), referred to an Environmental Clearance (EC) condition stipulating that the "clearance is subject to obtaining prior clearance from the Forest Department, including clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, as applicable."[6] This underscores that an EC does not automatically imply wildlife clearance, which is considered separately by respective authorities, including the NBWL, on its merits.

The Supreme Court, in an order related to T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others (2011), disposed of applications by directing the applicant to approach the NBWL for appropriate permission, granting liberty to move the Court after the NBWL's decision.[7]

The NGT, in Nicholas H. Almeida v. Lenzing Modi Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2013), examined an EC granted subject to the condition that necessary permission be obtained from the NBWL. The Tribunal raised a pertinent question about whether such clearances can be granted without prior satisfaction of conditions like NBWL approval, or if it is permissible to allow project proponents to obtain these post-EC.[8]

The lack of NBWL clearance can be a critical factor in project viability. In M/S. J.S. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA (2022), the NGT noted that the applicant did not possess the requisite wildlife clearance from the Standing Committee of the NBWL for a black stone quarry near a wildlife sanctuary.[9] Similarly, in Samir Singh v. IREO Fiveriver Private Ltd. (2016), a delay in project development was attributed, in part, to the time taken to receive clearance from NBWL authorities.[10]

The Supreme Court's directions in the context of ESZs, as noted in Amit Kumar v. Union Of India & Ors. (2013), further highlight the NBWL's role. The Apex Court directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to refer cases where ECs had already been granted for activities within 10 km of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries to the Standing Committee of the NBWL under Sections 5-B and 5-C(ii) of the WLPA.[11]

The National Board for Wild Life and Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs)

The NBWL's functions include "making recommendations on the setting up of and management of national parks, sanctuaries and other protected areas and on matters relating to restriction of activities in those areas" (Section 5-C(2)(b) WLPA).[4] This mandate inherently involves advising on the declaration and management of Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) around such protected areas.

The judiciary has often intervened to ensure the protection of ESZs. The Supreme Court in Goa Foundation v. Union Of India And Others (2014) mandated the establishment of ESZs within one kilometer of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, prohibiting mining within these zones, and directed the MoEF to officially designate such areas.[12] While this case does not explicitly detail NBWL's direct role in that specific order, the NBWL's general advisory function on protected areas makes its input crucial for ESZ policies.

The NGT's decision in Lsc Infratech Ltd. v. Union Of India (2019) reinforced the default 10 km ESZ radius (pending specific notification) around Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary and the necessity of NBWL approval for activities therein.[5] The NGT in Amit Kumar v. Union Of India & Ors. (2013) discussed the evolution of the ESZ concept, from an initial 10 km radius strategy by the Indian Board for Wild Life (a precursor body) to a site-specific approach, and the Supreme Court's subsequent orders emphasizing the need for States to propose ESZs, failing which the 10 km rule might be enforced.[11] The referral of projects within such zones to the NBWL Standing Committee underscores the Board's oversight.[11]

Interplay with Other Environmental Bodies and Principles

The NBWL operates within a broader framework of environmental governance in India, which includes other specialized bodies and overarching legal principles.

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted by the Supreme Court's order in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad (50) v. Union Of India And Others (2002) as an interim national authority to oversee the implementation of the Court's environmental orders.[13] Later, a notification constituted the CEC as a statutory authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.[14] The Supreme Court in In Re : T.n. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others (2024) discussed the institutionalization and reconstitution of the CEC.[14] While the CEC and NBWL have distinct mandates, both play significant roles in environmental protection and conservation, often under judicial or statutory direction.

The decisions and advisory functions of the NBWL are expected to align with fundamental environmental law principles such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the public trust doctrine, which have been extensively discussed and applied by Indian courts in cases like Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union Of India (2011)[15], T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union Of India And Others (2005)[16], and Goa Foundation v. Union Of India And Others (2014).[12] For instance, the Lafarge case emphasized sustainable development and the integrity of clearance processes,[15] while the T.N. Godavarman (2005) case reinforced the public trust doctrine in the context of natural resources.[16]

The WLPA also provides for State Wildlife Advisory Boards (now State Boards for Wild Life). The Supreme Court monitored their constitution in Centre For Environmental Law, Wwf-I v. Union Of India And Others (1997)[17] and (1998).[18] However, as established earlier, the NBWL holds a superior advisory position with a national mandate, and its views prevail over those of the SBWLs in matters of policy and conservation strategy.[1, 2]

Challenges and Efficacy

Despite its strong statutory backing and judicial affirmation, the efficacy of the NBWL can be influenced by several factors. The initial delay in its constitution, as noted by the Supreme Court,[3] highlights potential administrative hurdles. Ensuring that the NBWL's advice is based on robust, independent scientific assessment and is consistently heeded by governmental agencies in the face of developmental pressures remains an ongoing challenge. The balance between wildlife conservation and the legitimate needs of economic development requires careful and informed deliberation, a role for which the NBWL is designed but which is inherently complex.

The requirement for NBWL clearance, while crucial for safeguarding wildlife, can also contribute to project timelines, as seen in Samir Singh v. IREO Fiveriver Private Ltd. (2016).[10] Streamlining processes without compromising on the thoroughness of environmental scrutiny is a continuous administrative goal.

Conclusion

The National Board for Wild Life stands as a cornerstone of India's legal and institutional framework for wildlife conservation. Endowed with a broad mandate under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and chaired by the Prime Minister, the NBWL is tasked with guiding national wildlife policy, advising Central and State Governments, and overseeing the protection of wildlife habitats. The Indian judiciary has repeatedly underscored the NBWL's status as the "top most scientific body" in wildlife matters, affirming the primacy of its opinions and its critical role in the assessment of projects impacting ecologically sensitive areas. Its involvement in the environmental clearance process, particularly for activities near protected areas and within ESZs, is vital for integrating conservation concerns into developmental planning. While challenges in operational efficiency and balancing competing interests persist, the NBWL remains an indispensable institution for upholding India's commitment to preserving its rich biodiversity and ensuring ecological security.

References

  1. Centre For Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union Of India (Supreme Court Of India, 2013).
  2. Bharat Jhunjhunwala v. Union Of India And Others . (Allahabad High Court, 2019).
  3. Centre For Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2003).
  4. MEGA INFRATECH PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2025).
  5. Lsc Infratech Ltd. v. Union Of India (2019 SCC ONLINE NGT 853, National Green Tribunal, 2019).
  6. Usha v. The Union of India (Madras High Court, 2024).
  7. T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others (2014 SCC 16 707, Supreme Court Of India, 2011).
  8. Nicholas H. Almeida v. Lenzing Modi Fibres India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2013 SCC ONLINE NGT 945, National Green Tribunal, 2013).
  9. M/S. J.S. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA (National Green Tribunal, 2022).
  10. Samir Singh v. IREO Fiveriver Private Ltd. (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2016).
  11. Amit Kumar v. Union Of India & Ors. (National Green Tribunal, 2013).
  12. Goa Foundation v. Union Of India And Others (2014 SCC 6 590, Supreme Court Of India, 2014).
  13. T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad (50) v. Union Of India And Others (2013 SCC 8 198, Supreme Court Of India, 2002).
  14. In Re : T.n. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2024).
  15. Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union Of India (2011 SCC 12 483, Supreme Court Of India, 2011).
  16. T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union Of India And Others (2006 SCC 1 1, Supreme Court Of India, 2005).
  17. Centre For Environmental Law, Wwf-I v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1997).
  18. Centre For Environmental Law, Wwf-I v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1998).