The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine Haryana’s proposal to develop a zoo safari in the Aravalli range, making it clear that the project can move forward only if the expert body gives its approval.
The court was hearing a petition filed by five retired Haryana bureaucrats, on whose plea it had earlier, on October 8, 2025, stayed all further work on the project.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant noted that no expert assessment had yet been conducted to evaluate the project’s feasibility or environmental impact. The court observed that the Haryana government had submitted a draft detailed project report (DPR) to the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) in September last year without first obtaining an independent expert opinion.
Issuing notice to the CEC, the bench—also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi—directed the committee to submit its findings in the form of a report. The court also extended its earlier interim order staying the project.
Appearing for the state, Haryana additional advocate general Lokesh Singhal told the court that concerns had earlier been raised about setting up a safari on “degraded forest land”. He referred to the Supreme Court’s March 2024 ruling on the Corbett tiger safari project at Pakhrau, where a committee had permitted the safari to function alongside a rescue and rehabilitation centre. However, he argued that the Corbett judgment would not apply in the present case, as the proposed project was a zoo safari and not a tiger safari.
Singhal said the proposed site in Mewat was degraded forest land that had earlier been affected by illegal mining. “Developing a zoo safari will help rejuvenate ponds in the area and protect forests. Our only request is that the DPR pending before the CZA be processed,” he said.
Assisting the court as amicus curiae, senior advocate K Parmeshwar cautioned that the CEC might face challenges in evaluating the project as it was still at a preliminary stage. “The project is at the inception stage, and the first question is whether such a project is required at all,” he said.
He added that three key aspects would need scrutiny: the project’s impact on the water table, the afforestation plan—including the species of trees to be planted—and the source of the animals proposed to be housed in the safari.
The bench underlined that the CEC would provide an independent and unbiased assessment. “CEC is an autonomous body. We want a free and independent opinion on the ecological damage and other environmental concerns. If the CEC says the project cannot be undertaken, the matter will end there. If it says the project may be permitted with conditions, we will examine those,” the court said.
Advocate Shibani Ghosh, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the safari was being projected primarily as a tourism venture on forest land. “As long as no work begins, we have no concern,” she told the court.
The petition was filed by five retired Indian Forest Service officers, led by RP Balwan, along with the NGO People for Aravallis. They contended that the proposed project—initially spread over 10,000 acres—would cause irreversible damage to the ecologically sensitive Aravalli range.
According to the plea, the safari would require extensive permanent construction, including guest houses, staff quarters, animal enclosures, hotels, restaurants, recreational and commercial facilities, as well as roads, power and communication infrastructure, and firefighting systems.
The Haryana government has since informed the court that the project area has been scaled down from 10,000 acres to around 3,300 acres. It denied claims that the project was purely tourism-driven, stating that the Aravalli Safari Park was intended to support ecological restoration of degraded land, wildlife conservation and research, promote eco-tourism, and create employment opportunities for local communities.
Under the revised plan, 30% of the area will be used for animal enclosures, while the remaining 70% will be maintained as a green zone. The state argued that the project would be a conservation initiative rather than a “death knell” for the Aravallis, as the area would be secured with boundary walls and ecologically restored using native plant species.
