The Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ row has returned to focus as the Assam government raises objections in litigation concerning the declaration of an eco-sensitive zone around Kaziranga National Park. The dispute involves environmental protection, wildlife corridors and the legal process for notifying the ESZ.
The matter has also gained renewed attention after Assam proposed a site-specific ESZ around Kaziranga in 2026. The proposal has triggered debate over the balance between conservation requirements and the concerns of communities living around the protected landscape.
Special Assistance to States Scheme: Northeast Gets Fresh Capital Investment Support
Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ Row Centres on PIL
The Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ row is linked to a Public Interest Litigation filed before the Gauhati High Court over environmental protection around Kaziranga National Park. The petition raised concerns about the non-declaration of the ESZ and protection of wildlife habitats and animal corridors.
In October 2024, the High Court recorded the State government’s preliminary objection that the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court in the proceedings concerning T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad. The State therefore argued that the High Court should await an effective decision from the Supreme Court.
The High Court subsequently adjourned the PIL sine die. The order allowed the parties to approach the court again after the Supreme Court passed a final or effective order on the relevant ESZ issue.
The litigation nevertheless covers wider environmental concerns. These include protection of biodiversity, wildlife habitat, identified animal corridors and action against unauthorised industrial and other non-forest activities around the Kaziranga landscape.
Assam Government Raises Preliminary Objections
The State’s objection focuses largely on the overlap between the High Court proceedings and the Supreme Court’s continuing consideration of ESZ-related questions. Therefore, the government has maintained that the High Court should take account of the proceedings already pending before the apex court.
The legal position also involves the distinction between a formally notified ESZ and the interim protection that operates where a protected area does not yet have a final ESZ notification.
In a March 2026 judgment involving mining activity near Kaziranga, the Gauhati High Court recorded that Assam had not, at that stage, submitted either a final notification or a draft ESZ proposal for Kaziranga to the Central government. The court consequently noted that the 10-kilometre default ESZ remained operative.
The same judgment referred to Supreme Court directions stating that where an ESZ proposal has not been received for a national park or wildlife sanctuary, the 10-kilometre buffer continues to apply until the applicable decision is taken. The court also noted that mining is prohibited within that default ESZ.
Thus, the legal dispute cannot be viewed simply as a disagreement over a numerical distance. It also involves the authority of the Supreme Court’s directions, the State’s proposal-making process and the Central government’s role in final notification.
Proposed ESZ Brings Fresh Environmental Debate
The issue gained fresh prominence in August 2026 after the Assam government indicated that it would pursue a site-specific ESZ around Kaziranga rather than retain the default 10-kilometre protection indefinitely.
Reports said the proposed ESZ could extend between one and three kilometres from the park boundary depending on the location. The State government argued that its approach follows Supreme Court directions and does not change the notified boundary of Kaziranga National Park itself.
Assam has also argued that the existing default buffer can create difficulties for residents and development activities in areas surrounding the park. According to the government’s position, a site-specific approach would account for local circumstances while continuing to protect the protected area.
However, environmental organisations and political groups have raised concerns about reducing the protective buffer. The Assam Environmental NGO Forum, for example, called for scientific assessments and expert recommendations before determining the final extent of the ESZ.
Consequently, the proposed ESZ has created competing concerns. On one side, the government and some local residents have highlighted restrictions affecting homes, businesses and development. On the other, conservation groups have stressed the importance of wildlife corridors, seasonal animal movement and the wider Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong landscape.
Wildlife Corridors Remain Central to PIL
Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ Row and Wildlife Protection
The Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ row also has significance beyond the formal boundary of the national park. Kaziranga’s surrounding landscape supports wildlife movement. This becomes particularly important during floods, when animals move towards higher ground.
The PIL has raised concerns about nine identified animal corridors. Earlier court proceedings also examined development, non-forest activities and wildlife habitat around Kaziranga.
The March 2026 High Court judgment highlighted the Supreme Court’s directions on areas surrounding Kaziranga. The court noted that restrictions could continue in areas covered by a proposed or default ESZ. Those restrictions could remain until authorities made the relevant statutory decision.
At the same time, some residents support the State government’s site-specific approach. They say a blanket 10-kilometre restriction could affect construction, land use and local economic activity. NDTV reported similar concerns among villagers around Kaziranga.
Therefore, the final ESZ process must address both conservation and community concerns. Authorities will need a clear scientific basis for their decision. They must also conduct appropriate consultations and follow applicable court directions.
Central Decision Could Shape Kaziranga ESZ
The Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ row remains connected to the wider legal process involving the State government, the Centre and the Supreme Court. The High Court earlier chose to await developments in the Supreme Court proceedings. This shows the importance of coordination between judicial and administrative processes.
The situation has changed since the High Court’s March 2026 observation. At that time, the court recorded that Assam had not submitted a draft proposal to the Centre. By August 2026, however, the State government had publicly outlined plans for a site-specific ESZ around Kaziranga.
This development could change the administrative context of the litigation. Nevertheless, a government proposal does not automatically become a final ESZ notification. Authorities must still complete the applicable environmental and legal procedures.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s directions continue to provide an important legal framework for activities around protected areas. The Gauhati High Court has applied those directions in cases involving mining and other activities around Kaziranga.
The next phase will depend on the formal proposal and its examination by the competent authorities. Further court directions could also affect the process. Until then, readers should distinguish the government’s current proposal from any final ESZ size or legal status.
Conclusion
The Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ row highlights an ongoing legal and environmental debate over protection around Kaziranga National Park. The Assam government has raised objections in PIL proceedings. It has also pointed to the related Supreme Court case and concerns about overlapping judicial proceedings.
At the same time, Assam’s 2026 proposal for a site-specific ESZ has renewed the wider debate. The government says the approach follows Supreme Court directions. Environmental groups, meanwhile, have called for scientific assessment and greater attention to wildlife corridors.
The final outcome will depend on the applicable legal process and decisions by competent authorities. Therefore, the dispute remains an ongoing process rather than a final decision to weaken or expand Kaziranga’s environmental protection.
FAQs
What is the Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ row about?
The Gauhati HC Kaziranga ESZ row concerns a PIL raising questions about the declaration of an eco-sensitive zone around Kaziranga, wildlife corridors and protection of the surrounding ecosystem.
What objection did the Assam government raise?
The State government argued that the ESZ issue was already pending before the Supreme Court and that the High Court should await an effective decision in the related proceedings.
What did the Gauhati High Court do with the PIL?
In October 2024, the High Court adjourned the PIL sine die while awaiting a final or effective decision from the Supreme Court on the relevant ESZ issue.
What is Assam’s latest position on the Kaziranga ESZ?
In 2026, Assam proposed a site-specific ESZ that could extend between one and three kilometres from the park boundary, arguing that the approach follows Supreme Court directions.
Why are environmental groups concerned?
Environmental groups have raised concerns that a narrower ESZ could increase pressure on wildlife corridors, seasonal migration routes and the wider Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong landscape.
