What is the common examiner trap about Environment in UPSC exams?

They may ask which section of the WLPA restricts activities in a sanctuary, offering Section 35 (declaration of National Park) or Section 38 (declaration of Community Reserve) as distractors. They might also confuse the executing agency (Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.) with other state power utilities.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Environment for Prelims?

1. Target this Legal Point: Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - the embargo on activities in a sanctuary. 2. Target this Nodal Body: National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and its Standing Committee for granting wildlife clearances. 3. Target this Species: Lion-tailed macaque - an endangered primate endemic to the Western Ghats, protected under Schedule I.

EnvironmentPolity

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 10 of 24

Karnataka HC Stays Sharavathi PSP in Sanctuary Citing Section 29 of Wildlife Act 1972, Lion-tailed Macaque Habitat

Q: Which statutory body, chaired by the Prime Minister, is responsible for advising the Central Government on wildlife conservation policies and reviewing projects in protected areas?

National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), As per the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) is the apex statutory body for wildlife conservation, chaired by the Prime Minister. Its Standing Committee, mentioned in the article, reviews projects like the Sharavathi PSP. NGT adjudicates environmental disputes, CPCB deals with pollution, and FAC advises on forest land diversion.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the news: 1. The Karnataka High Court stayed the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project citing potential violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 2. The project was approved by the Karnataka State Wildlife Board in its 19th meeting held on January 28, 2025. 3. The court expressed prima facie concern that the project could disrupt the habitat of the endangered Asian elephant. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Only 2, Statement 1 is incorrect. The court's order was based on Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, not the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Statement 2 is correct as per the article. Statement 3 is incorrect; the court's concern was for the lion-tailed macaque, not the Asian elephant. Hence, only statement 2 is correct.

Q: In which meeting of the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife was an 'in-principle' recommendation granted for the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project, as mentioned in the PIL?

84th meeting held on June 26, 2025, The article explicitly states that the PIL sought to quash the in-principle recommendation granted in the 84th meeting of the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife, held on June 26, 2025. The other dates are plausible distractors but not mentioned.

Q: What is the primary legal ground on which the Karnataka High Court issued an interim stay on the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project, as indicated in its prima facie observation?

Potential disruption of the habitat of an endangered species, defeating the purpose of declaring the sanctuary under the Wildlife Act., The court's order, as quoted, states that disrupting the habitat of the endangered lion-tailed macaque 'would prima facie mitigate one of the principal purposes of declaring the said sanctuary.' This directly links to the objectives of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. While other clearances (EIA, CEA) may be relevant, the court's specific legal reasoning centered on the sanctuary's conservation purpose.

Environment PolitySUPPORT

Target:UPSC GS-IIIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

10 Mar 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:Section 29 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972January 28, 2025June 26, 2025

Bodies:Karnataka High CourtNational Board for WildlifeKarnataka State Wildlife BoardKarnataka Power Corporation Limited

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Karnataka High Court's Division Bench ordered a halt to on-ground work for the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project within the forest, pending court permission.

2.The PIL challenges approvals granted by the Karnataka State Wildlife Board and the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife, citing violations of Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

3.The court's prima facie view is that the project could disrupt the habitat of the endangered lion-tailed macaque, defeating the core purpose of declaring the sanctuary.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Karnataka High Court has issued an interim stay on all on-ground work for the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project within the Sharavathi valley sanctuary. This decision, based on a PIL, hinges on the legal interpretation of Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the potential threat to the endangered lion-tailed macaque's habitat. This case is a classic example of judiciary enforcing environmental safeguards against development projects in protected areas, a recurring theme in exams.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Court BenchChief Justice Vibhu Bakhru & Justice C M Poonacha

Key Legal ProvisionSection 29, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

Endangered Species CitedLion-tailed macaque

Project Executing AgencyKarnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL)

Key Approval DatesJan 28, 2025 (State Board) & June 26, 2025 (National Board)

1-Minute Revision

›Court Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru & Justice C M Poonacha
›Key Legal Provision: Section 29, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
›Target this Legal Point: Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - the embargo on activities in a sanctuary.
›Target this Nodal Body: National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and its Standing Committee for granting wildlife clearances.
›Target this Species: Lion-tailed macaque - an endangered primate endemic to the Western Ghats, protected under Schedule I.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Judicial Intervention

Karnataka HC imposes an interim stay on ground work for a hydro project in a wildlife sanctuary, citing potential violation of the Wildlife Act.

🐒

Habitat Protection

The court's primary concern is the disruption of the habitat of the endangered lion-tailed macaque, a key species in the Sharavathi valley sanctuary.

📜

Legal Embargo

The case centers on the interpretation of Section 29 of the Wildlife Act, which restricts non-forest activities in a sanctuary without permission.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Pumped Storage Projects (PSPs) are crucial for India's renewable energy grid stability, but often face environmental scrutiny when located in ecologically sensitive areas. The Sharavathi valley sanctuary in Karnataka is a protected area under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. This legal battle follows a pattern where project clearances granted by wildlife boards are challenged in courts over procedural and substantive violations of environmental laws.

Core Analysis & Implications

The court's order highlights the tension between development imperatives (clean energy) and conservation mandates. The legal pivot is Section 29 of the WLPA, which prohibits destruction, exploitation, or removal of wildlife from a sanctuary without a permit. The court's prima facie observation that habitat destruction for an endangered species negates the sanctuary's purpose sets a high bar for project proponents. This reinforces the 'precautionary principle' and 'public trust doctrine' in environmental jurisprudence, making it harder to get approvals for projects in Protected Areas.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The National Board for Wildlife's examination of the project's concerns will be critical. The court will finally decide if the approvals were valid and if the project complies with Section 29. The outcome will set a precedent for balancing India's energy infrastructure goals with its commitments under the Biological Diversity Act and international conventions. It may also lead to stricter scrutiny of wildlife board decisions and a push for alternative sites for such projects.

Key Facts at a Glance

Court BenchChief Justice Vibhu Bakhru & Justice C M Poonacha

Key Legal ProvisionSection 29, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

Endangered Species CitedLion-tailed macaque

Project Executing AgencyKarnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL)

Key Approval DatesJan 28, 2025 (State Board) & June 26, 2025 (National Board)

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which statutory body, chaired by the Prime Minister, is responsible for advising the Central Government on wildlife conservation policies and reviewing projects in protected areas?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC

Consider the following statements regarding the news:

1. The Karnataka High Court stayed the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project citing potential violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

2. The project was approved by the Karnataka State Wildlife Board in its 19th meeting held on January 28, 2025.

3. The court expressed prima facie concern that the project could disrupt the habitat of the endangered Asian elephant.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC

In which meeting of the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife was an 'in-principle' recommendation granted for the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project, as mentioned in the PIL?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, State PSC

What is the primary legal ground on which the Karnataka High Court issued an interim stay on the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project, as indicated in its prima facie observation?

All 15 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

EnvironmentView Topic MCQs →PolityView Topic MCQs →

PreviousMeta’s Oversight Board Calls for ‘High Risk AI’ Labels & C2PA Standards for Deepfakes Amid Israel-Iran War (2025-2026)Next Constitution (129th) Amendment Bill 2024 Proposes Simultaneous Elections for Lok Sabha & Assemblies via One-Time Term Curation

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Karnataka Parks & BMLTA Amendments Shield Tunnel Road Project; 5% Park Land Use Allowed

The Karnataka government has passed two controversial bills amending the Parks (Preservation) Act and the BMLTA Act, which critics allege are designed to shield the Chief Minister's pet Tunnel Road project from three pending PILs in court. The amendments allow the state to use 5% of protected park land for public infrastructure and grant retrospective approval to projects initiated between 2022-2026, potentially bypassing legal scrutiny.

Environment Current Affairs

Karnataka High Court Quashes Housing Board Land Acquisition in Bannerghatta ESZ, Upholds Elephant Corridor Protection

The Karnataka High Court quashed land acquisition for a housing project in the Bannerghatta National Park Eco-Sensitive Zone, ruling that elephant corridors are essential habitat, not mere passages, and cannot be displaced for development. This judgment reinforces the legal protection of wildlife corridors and eco-sensitive zones in land acquisition cases, a crucial topic for environment and governance.

Environment Current Affairs

SC Mandates Minimum 1 km ESZ: Assam Notifies 1 km Buffer for Kaziranga, Defends Against 10 km Default

This news clarifies the legal framework for Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZs) around national parks – a key topic for UPSC Environment and Ecology. The Supreme Court's 2022 order mandating a minimum 1 km ESZ is a landmark judgment. Assam's move to notify 1 km for Kaziranga (UNESCO site) and the debate over the 10 km default highlights the balance between conservation and development, often tested in prelims (MCQ on ESZ minimum distance, SC order year) and mains (environmental governance, buffer zones).

Environment Current Affairs

Assam Seeks 1 km Eco-Sensitive Zone for Kaziranga: SC Allows Flexible Buffer Zone

The Assam government's proposal to reduce the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Kaziranga National Park from the default 10 km to just 1 km has ignited a debate on conservation vs. development. This news is critical for understanding ESZ regulations under the Environment Protection Act, the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling on flexible buffer zones, and the implications for wildlife corridors. Prelims focus: ESZ definition, MoEFCC guidelines, SC orders. Mains angle: environment vs. development trade-off, wildlife conservation policies.

Polity Current Affairs

Karnataka HC Quashes KPSC Chairperson Suspension; Governor's Independent Action Invalid Under Article 317(1)

Karnataka High Court reinstates KPSC Chairperson Sahukar, ruling that the Governor's suspension order was invalid because it was passed without the aid and advice of the State Cabinet. This reaffirms the constitutional principle that the Governor is bound by Cabinet advice, even in matters concerning removal of SPSC members under Article 317(1). Important for understanding Governor's discretionary powers and the role of the Supreme Court in such inquiries.

Polity Current Affairs

Karnataka High Court: Degree or Past Employment Doesn't Negate Homemaker Status, Enhances Compensation from ₹4.55L to ₹6.52L

The Karnataka High Court ruled that a woman's education or prior employment does not disqualify her from being considered a 'homemaker' for accident compensation. This landmark judgment redefines 'homemaker' as gender-neutral and emphasizes the value of unpaid domestic work, directly impacting Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claim calculations.

Polity Current Affairs

Karnataka HC to Hear Governor's Appeal on Suspension of KPSC Chairperson: Article 317(2) Powers in Question

The Karnataka High Court is examining a constitutional dispute: Can the Governor suspend a KPSC chairperson without the Cabinet's advice? A single judge said no, but the Governor's appeal argues that subsequent Cabinet approval can validate the action under the doctrine of ratification. This case tests the limits of Article 317(2) and the Governor's discretionary powers.

Polity Current Affairs

Bombay HC: Private Forest Vesting Under 1975 Act Not Automatic, State Must Follow Procedure

The Bombay High Court ruled that the Maharashtra government cannot automatically declare private lands as 'private forests' under the 1975 Act without following due procedure, overriding the presumption that any forest land vested in the State on August 30, 1975. This judgment, based on Supreme Court precedents, affects hundreds of landholders and clarifies a recurring legal dispute between property rights and forest conservation.

Start Today's Quiz(15 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

15 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Karnataka HC Stays Sharavathi PSP in Sanctuary Citing Section 29 of Wildlife Act 1972, Lion-tailed Macaque Habitat

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Judicial Intervention

Habitat Protection

Legal Embargo

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance