Rajasthan’s attempts to redraw the boundaries of its key wildlife sanctuaries and reserves have drawn sharp rebuke from India’s judiciary, with a string of court orders halting what conservationists describe as a systematic erosion of ecological protections in favour of infrastructure, tourism, and mining interests.

In recent weeks, the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court have intervened in multiple cases where the state government has been accused of bypassing legal procedures to alter forest limits, often allegedly to accommodate commercial interests. The spotlight is now firmly on the state’s dual approach — marketing Ranthambore, Sariska, and Nahargarh as prized wildlife destinations, while simultaneously promoting projects that could fragment and degrade these protected areas.

On September 19, the Rajasthan High Court stayed a controversial order by the state’s forest department that redefined the boundaries of the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary and its eco-sensitive zone (ESZ). The court’s action came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) that alleged the revised map excluded significant portions of the sanctuary — previously notified in 1980 and reaffirmed in 2019 — using satellite-based GIS tools. Conservationists argue the excluded areas are crucial ecological buffers protecting Jaipur’s northern hills and suspect the move was intended to legitimise encroachments and facilitate commercial construction, including luxury hotels.

The court demanded affidavits from both the state forest department and the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, questioning whether necessary clearances, including from the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), had been obtained. Under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court, any change to sanctuary boundaries or ESZ limits requires the NBWL’s explicit approval — a process conservationists say is frequently skirted by state agencies.

Nahargarh is only one piece of a larger controversy. In Ranthambore National Park — one of the world’s most prominent tiger reserves — the NBWL recently rejected, for the second time, a proposal by the Rajasthan Public Works Department to construct a bridge through the park’s core zone. The bridge, part of the Sawai Madhopur–Sheopur road project, was slammed for potentially severing vital tiger corridors and disrupting habitat connectivity between Ranthambore, Kuno, and surrounding areas.

The NBWL criticised the Rajasthan government for resubmitting a previously rejected proposal without disclosing its earlier rejection — an omission it labelled non-transparent and unacceptable. In response, the Board introduced a new rule mandating that all future proposals must disclose any past refusals, signalling a tougher stance against procedural evasion.

Even more alarming to conservationists is the proposed Doongri Dam under the Eastern Rajasthan Canal Project (ERCP). The dam, designed to span 1.6 km and rise 39 metres, would submerge over 227 sq km — including 37 sq km of Ranthambore and Kailadevi sanctuaries. This would effectively drown a critical wildlife corridor and displace 76 villages. While the state argues the dam will address water scarcity and benefit both people and wildlife, experts say the ecological cost is too high. “You cannot call the submergence of tiger corridors a water management plan,” said a former forest officer. The case is expected to escalate to the Supreme Court.

Illegal mining has emerged as another flashpoint. A September 2025 interim report by the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) exposed rampant stone mining near the boundary of Ranthambore, with satellite imagery confirming truck movement and forest degradation. The court has labelled the issue “urgent and very serious,” ordering the state to halt mining immediately or face contempt proceedings.

Sariska Tiger Reserve is also under the scanner. In June, the NBWL and the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) approved a “rationalisation” plan to remove 48.5 sq km from its southern boundary while adding 91 sq km in the north. Conservationists allege this swap weakens the reserve’s ecological integrity and could reopen areas to mining. The Supreme Court has stayed any boundary change without full public consultation and strict adherence to the Wildlife Protection and Forest Rights Acts. It criticised national authorities for acting “like a post office,” merely forwarding state proposals without scrutiny.

Notably, both Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav and Rajasthan Forest Minister Sanjay Sharma hail from Alwar, where Sariska is located — fuelling suspicions of political motivations behind the boundary changes. Activists say the moves could pave the way for over 50 dormant mining leases to be revived.

These judicial interventions highlight a growing pattern: courts, not governments, are emerging as the primary defenders of India’s ecological frontiers. Whether addressing illegal mining, blocked tiger corridors, or sanctuary shrinkage, the legal system has become the main arena for conservation battles in Rajasthan.

With projects like the Delhi-Mumbai Expressway already cutting through Ranthambore’s buffer zone — despite the inclusion of overpasses and underpasses — and the ERCP dam on the horizon, the judiciary’s role will be pivotal. For now, Rajasthan’s forests and wildlife owe their protection less to policy and more to persistent legal vigilance and public interest litigation.