India’s National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), the country’s apex statutory body responsible for safeguarding protected wildlife habitats, is facing judicial scrutiny after conservationists and retired senior civil servants challenged its functioning before the Delhi High Court. The petition alleges that the Board has routinely approved development projects in protected areas with inadequate scientific scrutiny, raising concerns over the effectiveness of India’s wildlife governance framework.

On July 8, the Delhi High Court directed three officials of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to file their responses within four weeks. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 18.

The petition has been filed by a group of prominent conservationists, former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers, and environmental policy experts. It argues that the National Board for Wildlife and its Standing Committee have increasingly acted as approval authorities for infrastructure and development projects rather than fulfilling their statutory responsibility of protecting ecologically sensitive landscapes.

Established under India’s Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the National Board for Wildlife was constituted in 2003 to advise the central government on wildlife conservation and to examine proposals involving the diversion of forest land within national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, tiger reserves, wildlife corridors and eco-sensitive zones. Chaired by the Prime Minister, the Board includes ministers, senior government officials, members of Parliament, conservation scientists, environmental experts and representatives of civil society.

Its Standing Committee examines proposals requiring wildlife clearance before projects located in or around protected areas can proceed. These approvals are considered a critical component of India’s environmental clearance process for roads, mining, power projects, ports and other major infrastructure developments.

The petition alleges that the Standing Committee approved more than 97 percent of proposals involving denotification, diversion or reduction of protected area land between 2014 and 2026. According to the petitioners, such a high approval rate raises serious concerns about whether independent scientific assessment and ecological evaluation are being adequately carried out before decisions are made.

The legal challenge argues that India’s protected areas have increasingly been opened to large-scale development without sufficient examination of ecological risks. It contends that repeated approvals have contributed to habitat fragmentation, loss of biodiversity and weakening of statutory safeguards established under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

Among the projects highlighted in the petition is the clearance granted in January 2021 for the denotification of the Megapode and Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuaries on Great Nicobar Island. That recommendation subsequently enabled the Union government to grant the first stage of forest clearance for a large infrastructure project spanning approximately 130 square kilometres of tropical forest.

The Great Nicobar development project includes a transshipment port, an international airport, a township, power generation facilities and tourism infrastructure. Environmental experts have long identified the island as one of India’s biodiversity hotspots, supporting endemic wildlife, marine ecosystems and globally significant nesting habitats for several threatened species.

Beyond individual project approvals, the petition raises concerns about the institutional functioning of the National Board for Wildlife itself. Under Indian law, the full Board is required to meet at least once each year. However, the petition states that the Board reportedly convened only once after a gap of 13 years, leaving most decisions concerning protected areas to its Standing Committee.

The petition also questions the committee’s working procedures, alleging that meetings frequently consider dozens of proposals in a single sitting, limiting the scope for detailed ecological review. It further argues that committee proceedings lack transparency, with no formal mechanism for recording dissenting opinions or documenting scientific disagreements during decision-making.

Another issue highlighted is the composition of the Standing Committee. The petition argues that it is dominated by government officials and lacks sufficient representation from independent wildlife scientists and ecological experts, potentially limiting the diversity of scientific perspectives considered while evaluating complex conservation issues.

India is recognised as one of the world’s megadiverse countries and is home to nearly eight percent of global biodiversity despite occupying only about 2.4 percent of the Earth’s land area. Its network of protected areas includes more than a thousand national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation reserves and community reserves, providing habitat for globally threatened species such as tigers, Asian elephants, lions, snow leopards, rhinoceroses and numerous endemic plants and animals.

The outcome of the case could have broader implications for environmental governance in India, particularly as the country pursues rapid infrastructure expansion alongside its international commitments to biodiversity conservation. The High Court’s eventual decision may influence how statutory wildlife clearances are evaluated, strengthen scientific oversight of development proposals and redefine the balance between conservation priorities and economic development within protected landscapes.

The respondents in the case include the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Member Secretary of the National Board for Wildlife and the Additional Director General of Forests (Wildlife), who have been directed to submit their responses before the next hearing in September.