Examine the reasons behind non-implementation of the 2013 Supreme Court directive on Asiatic lion translocation. What does this reveal about cooperative federalism in wildlife governance?

Q. Examine the reasons behind non-implementation of the 2013 Supreme Court directive on Asiatic lion translocation. What does this reveal about cooperative federalism in wildlife governance? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

On 15 April 2013, the Supreme Court, applying a "best interest of the species" standard, directed translocation of Asiatic lions (Panthera leo persica) from Gir to Kuno-Palpur, Madhya Pradesh, within six months [1]. Over a decade later the order remains unexecuted, exposing deeper fault lines in Centre-State wildlife governance.

Reasons for non-implementation - State prestige and political ownership: Gujarat treats the lion as a symbol of state identity and a tourism asset; the Court itself had to caution that the issue "is not whether the lion is a family member or the pride of a State" [1]. - Constitutional division of responsibility: protection and management of wildlife and habitats rests primarily with State Governments, so the Centre lacks direct executive machinery to compel transfer [2]. - Diversion of the receiving site: Kuno, prepared through relocation of villages, was subsequently prioritised for cheetah reintroduction, weakening administrative momentum for lions [1]. - Substitution by natural dispersal: lions have colonised Barda Wildlife Sanctuary in Gujarat since 2023, reaching 17 individuals, and rising numbers (674 in 2020 to 891 in 2025) are cited as proof that translocation is unnecessary [3]. - Weak compliance mechanisms: no statutory timeline or penalty attaches to inter-State species transfer, and the Centre's leverage is largely financial, through schemes like the Rs 97.85 crore Asiatic Lion Conservation Project and later Project Lion [4].

What it reveals about cooperative federalism Scientific consensus that a single population risks extinction from one epidemic or disaster has been overridden by competitive, rather than cooperative, federalism. Conservation success is measured in State-level counts instead of national risk reduction, and intra-State expansion is offered in place of genuine geographic separation.

The episode shows that judicial directions in environment need institutional scaffolding, not moral force alone. A negotiated framework under Project Lion's landscape approach [2] — with a joint Centre-State steering body, incentive-linked funding and shared credit for a second home — can reconcile Gujarat's stewardship with the constitutional duty under Article 48A to protect wildlife, securing both federal comity and the species' future.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Supreme Court judgment, Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (15 April 2013) — translocation order to Kuno, six-month timeline, "best interest of species" standard, Kuno-cheetah conflict 2. PIB, Rehabilitation of Asiatic Lions / Project Lion (2025) — wildlife management primarily a State responsibility; Project Lion's landscape-ecology approach 3. PIB, Gujarat Celebrates World Lion Day 2025 — population rise from 674 (2020) to 891 (2025); Barda Sanctuary population of 17 4. PIB, Asiatic Lion Conservation Project with Rs 97.85 crore central contribution (2018) — dedicated central funding as the Centre's principal lever