New Norms for Religious Sites in Sanctuaries

Conservation vs. Faith: New Norms for Religious Sites in Sanctuaries

Source

Official Source Link. The detailed report on these landmark guidelines is available at:
SCNBWL Oversight. These norms were formulated by the Standing Committee, which is the apex body of the Environment Ministry responsible for permitting infrastructure development within critical wildlife habitats.
National Policy Shift. The guidelines represent a shift toward a standardized **Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)** for all future applications involving religious land diversion in sanctuaries.

Initial Diversion Request. In early 2024, a proposal sought to use **0.35 hectares** of forest land for a religious trust within the Balaram Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary in Gujarat.
The Retraction. Although initially cleared in July 2024, the SCNBWL revoked the approval in October after a member, **H.S. Singh**, pointed out that the trust’s rights were not officially recorded in forest settlement reports.
Warning of Precedents. The committee realized that an ad-hoc approval in Gujarat could trigger a “floodgate” of similar demands across India’s protected areas.

The Cut-off Year. The core principle of the new guidelines is that any construction or expansion of religious sites on forest land after **1980** is to be treated as **illegal encroachment**.
Legal Rationale. 1980 marks the enactment of the **Forest (Conservation) Act**, which strictly prohibited the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes without central approval.
Retroactive Scrutiny. Existing sites will now be evaluated against historical government records to determine if they pre-date this critical legislative baseline.

General Prohibition. Expansion of the existing physical “footprint” of religious structures within sanctuaries is generally prohibited to prevent habitat fragmentation.
Exceptional Utilities. Limited expansion may only be considered if it is essential for **mitigating ecological conflict** or creating public utilities (like water or sanitation) to manage pilgrim pressure.
State Justification. Any regularisation requires a “reasoned and documented order” from the State Government, which the Union Ministry will then evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

Unresolved Claims. The Ministry noted that in many sanctuaries, forest rights and claims have yet to be fully settled under the **Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006**.
Recorded Rights Only. The guidelines mandate that religious presence must be backed by formal recognition in forest settlement reports to be considered legitimate.
Limbo Status. Until rights are settled, many existing structures remain in a “legal limbo,” neither fully authorized nor immediately evictable without further scrutiny.

Formulating the SOP. Following deliberations chaired by Environment Minister **Bhupender Yadav**, a special panel was formed to refine these guidelines.
Expert Membership. The panel includes **Dr. H.S. Singh** and **Dr. R. Sukumar**, both renowned experts in wildlife biology and forest management.
Scientific Rigor. Their mandate is to ensure that “matters of faith” are balanced with scientific assessments of a sanctuary’s **carrying capacity** and biodiversity needs.

Habitat Fragmentation. Construction often leads to the clearing of vegetation and the building of roads, which breaks up wildlife corridors used by species like **Sloth Bears and Leopards**.
Increased Conflict. Human-wildlife conflict tends to rise in areas with high pilgrim footfall due to food waste, noise pollution, and unauthorized human presence in “No-Go” zones.
Sacred Groves. While many ancient sites are “sacred groves” that protected biodiversity for centuries, modern concrete construction is viewed as a threat to these very ecosystems.

Consultative Phase. As of early 2026, these guidelines are still being deliberated upon by various State Governments before final notification.
Implementation Hurdles. Some states with high densities of forest-based temples are seeking more flexibility for “ancient” sites that may lack modern paperwork.
Consensus Building. The Union Ministry is pushing for a consensus to prevent political pressure from diluting conservation standards at the state level.

Freedom of Religion. The guidelines acknowledge the constitutional right to practice religion but clarify that it is subject to “reasonable restrictions,” including environmental protection laws.
Faith vs. Law. The SCNBWL maintains that “matters of faith” are not sufficient primary grounds for land diversion unless backed by historical legal entitlement.
Dignity of the Sanctuary. The overarching goal is to reinforce that protected areas exist primarily for wildlife, with human activity being a secondary, regulated exception.

Parameter	Guideline Provision
Baseline Year	1980 (Post-1980 works are encroachments)
Expansion Rule	Prohibited (Except for essential public utilities)
Verification	Must be recorded in Forest Settlement Reports
Final Authority	Standing Committee of NBWL (SCNBWL)
Primary Goal	Prevent habitat fragmentation and illegal land-grab

Parameter	Guideline Provision
Baseline Year	1980 (Post-1980 works are encroachments)
Expansion Rule	Prohibited (Except for essential public utilities)
Verification	Must be recorded in Forest Settlement Reports
Final Authority	Standing Committee of NBWL (SCNBWL)
Primary Goal	Prevent habitat fragmentation and illegal land-grab