Critically evaluate India's approach to reintroduction and recovery of critically endangered species, citing the Great Indian Bustard and Cheetah.

India's species-recovery approach blends legal protection under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, dedicated CAMPA funding, ex-situ conservation breeding and translocation. The Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Cheetah programmes show genuine scientific gains, but habitat and policy foundations remain weaker than the flagship effort itself.

Strengths of the approach

• Institutionalised funding and planning: CAMPA sanctioned Rs 33.85 crore (2016) for GIB habitat improvement and conservation breeding [1], followed by Rs 77.05 crore over five years (2024) for a joint GIB–Lesser Florican Action Plan [2]; a state-specific Gujarat Action Plan for GIB was released at Bhuj [3].
• Scientific ex-situ capability: breeding centres at Sam and Ramdevra (Jaisalmer), with Wildlife Institute of India support [4], use artificial insemination and telemetry; the captive tally reached 70 birds in the programme's fourth year [5].
• Cooperative federalism and biodiversity diplomacy: the Rajasthan–Gujarat "Jumpstart Approach" produced Kutch's first GIB chick in a decade [2]; Project Cheetah, the first intercontinental translocation of a large carnivore, brought cheetahs from Namibia, South Africa and Botswana to Kuno [6].
• Ecosystem spillover: expansion to Gandhisagar and Banni grasslands has pushed neglected rangeland restoration onto the conservation agenda [7].

Critical limitations

• High reintroduction mortality: five of the twenty founder cheetahs died at Kuno within the first year [8], exposing thin margins in prey base, space and veterinary capacity.
• Development–conservation conflict: GIB collisions with overhead power lines compelled Supreme Court intervention in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), which weighed renewable-energy expansion against species survival [9].
• Ex-situ bias: captive numbers rise while wild populations stay critically small; soft release into the wild is only beginning [5].
• Habitat-last sequencing: grasslands have historically received far less legal protection than forests, so species plans run ahead of secured habitat.

On balance, India's model is scientifically credible and well-funded, but recovery will be judged by wild populations, not captive tallies. Embedding grassland protection, power-line mitigation and community stewardship into these plans would align them with constitutional duties under Article 48A and SDG 15 (Life on Land).