Apex Wildlife Body Frames Guidelines on Religious Structures Inside Sanctuaries
Getty Images/iStockphoto
NEW DELHI: An apex expert body under the Union Environment Ministry has drawn up detailed guidelines to regulate the diversion of forest land inside wildlife sanctuaries and national parks for religious structures. The move follows growing concern within the government over proposals seeking regularisation, renovation, or expansion of temples and other religious sites located inside protected wildlife habitats.
The guidelines have been prepared by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL)—the statutory body that examines and clears proposals for infrastructure development within wildlife areas. While the draft norms have been finalised at the Centre, they are still under deliberation by State Governments before being formally enforced.
As a general principle, the guidelines state that any construction or expansion on forest land carried out after 1980 should be treated as “encroachment.” However, they also carve out limited exceptions, allowing case-by-case consideration in rare circumstances backed by strong documentary evidence and reasoned State orders.
Trigger for the Guidelines
The framing of these guidelines follows a first-of-its-kind case that came before the SCNBWL in early 2024, involving the Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary in Gujarat. According to the Gujarat government, the sanctuary hosts two historical temples—Balaram and Ambaji—located at opposite ends of the protected area.
In July 2024, the SCNBWL cleared a proposal by the Pramukhshri Mukundpuriji Maharaj Seva Trust, Palanpur, to “use” 0.35 hectares of forest land within the sanctuary. The clearance came after approvals from the Gujarat Chief Wildlife Warden and the State Government, which argued that the religious establishment predated the settlement of forest rights in the region.
However, the decision soon became controversial within the expert body itself.
Clearance Revoked Over Precedent Concerns
In October 2024, the SCNBWL revisited the decision and revoked the clearance after objections were raised by committee member H.S. Singh. Singh pointed out that the Trust’s rights over the land were not recorded in the forest settlement report or any official government records.
He cautioned that allowing sanctuary land to be diverted to a religious institution for the first time could set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door to similar demands across protected areas in the country. Singh urged the committee to reconsider its earlier recommendation in light of long-term conservation implications.
During subsequent discussions, the Inspector General of Forests informed the committee that there were several sanctuaries nationwide where rights and claims had not yet been formally settled, making the issue both sensitive and widespread.
Faith vs Conservation Debate
The debate within the committee also reflected the complex intersection of faith, history, and conservation. Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav, who chairs the SCNBWL, observed that several sacred caves, shrines, and religious sites located within forests and wildlife habitats are mentioned in religious texts.
He noted that followers of these faiths often seek to develop or maintain such sites as a matter of belief. Given the sensitive nature of these cases, Yadav suggested the need for a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to guide the submission and scrutiny of proposals involving religious institutions.
Following this, a proposal was made to constitute a small committee comprising Dr. H.S. Singh and noted ecologist Dr. R. Sukumar to help frame a structured approach to such cases.
What the Draft Guidelines Say
According to records of the SCNBWL’s December 2025 meeting, a summary of the newly prepared guidelines was formally presented before the committee.
The key principles outlined include:
Any construction, renovation, or expansion on forest land undertaken after 1980—the year the Forest Conservation framework came into force—should ordinarily be treated as encroachment.
In exceptional cases, where a State Government issues a reasoned, documented order justifying regularisation, such proposals may be referred to the Union Environment Ministry for consideration on a case-by-case basis.
Proposals involving expansion of area or footprint of existing religious structures would generally not be permitted.
Only limited expansion may be considered, and that too strictly for purposes such as mitigating ecological conflict or creating essential public utilities to manage existing human pressure.
The guidelines emphasise that conservation priorities must remain paramount, even when dealing with culturally or religiously sensitive sites.
Pending Decisions Reflect Caution
The SCNBWL has already begun applying a more cautious approach while the guidelines are under discussion. In its December 2025 meeting, the committee deferred a decision on a proposal seeking diversion of 0.16 hectares of forest land inside the Jamwaramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan.
The proposal pertained to renovation and maintenance work at the Jamwa MataJi Temple in Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur. The deferral signalled the committee’s intent to avoid setting precedents until a clear policy framework is finalised and agreed upon by States.
Balancing Heritage and Habitat
Officials familiar with the discussions say the guidelines aim to strike a balance between respecting long-standing cultural practices and ensuring that wildlife habitats are not gradually eroded through incremental permissions. Conservation experts have repeatedly warned that even small diversions inside sanctuaries can fragment habitats, disturb wildlife movement, and weaken legal protection over time.
The Environment Ministry believes that codifying principles now will help prevent ad-hoc decision-making in the future, especially as similar proposals are expected from multiple States.
Our Thoughts from TheTrendingPeople.com
The move to frame clear guidelines on religious structures inside sanctuaries reflects a long-overdue attempt to bring consistency and caution into an emotionally charged policy space. Faith and heritage hold deep significance, but protected forests exist precisely because they are ecologically irreplaceable. By drawing a firm line against post-1980 encroachments while allowing narrowly defined exceptions, the government is signalling that conservation cannot be negotiated case by case without rules. The real test will lie in implementation—whether these guidelines remain principled safeguards or become flexible tools under political pressure.