THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, Sept 18: The Supreme Court has taken a stern view of Jharkhand’s prolonged inaction in formally notifying the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve as protected areas.
The state’s chief secretary has been directed to appear in court on October 8 to explain the delay, with officials facing potential imprisonment for contempt if they continue to ignore the orders.
The case highlights the state’s repeated postponements despite clear directives issued in April 2025. Instead of implementing the orders, Jharkhand had constituted a committee in May to review the matter further, causing additional delays.
Also Read- Obituary: BC Thakur – A BPSC officer who redefined sports administration in Jharkhand
The issue traces back to a proposal submitted by the state’s principal chief conservator of forests in November 2024, which was returned for further comments by the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change in March 2025, effectively stalling the process.
Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the state government has the authority to designate areas adjoining national parks, sanctuaries, and ecological corridors as conservation reserves after consulting local communities. The objective of such designations is to protect landscapes, habitats, flora, and fauna.
The state has now expanded the proposed Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary from 31,468 hectares to 57,519 hectares and allocated an additional 13,603 hectares for the Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve. The proposal has been forwarded to the Wildlife Institute of India in Dehradun for expert evaluation.
Also Read- CAIT hosts seminar on ‘Next Gen GST Reforms’ in Jamshedpur
The Supreme Court has directed the institute to provide its recommendations within one month. Subsequently, the state government must complete the remaining procedural steps, including approval by the State Wildlife Board, clearance from the state Cabinet, and issuance of the final notification within two months.
The court’s intervention underscores the urgency of enforcing conservation measures and signals that continued defiance could lead to legal consequences, including imprisonment for responsible officials.
