Should India pursue a second free-ranging home for the Asiatic lion outside Gujarat? Critically evaluate the ecological and federal considerations involved.

Q. Should India pursue a second free-ranging home for the Asiatic lion outside Gujarat? Critically evaluate the ecological and federal considerations involved. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica), one of 21 species under the Centre's recovery programme [2], has risen to 891 individuals spread over ~35,000 sq. km across 11 districts of Saurashtra [1] — yet remains a single free-ranging population. In Centre for Environment Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court held that a second home at Kuno was necessary for long-term survival [4]. That verdict still holds, though its implementation must be gradual.

Ecological case for a second home - Single-population risk: an epidemic (canine distemper struck Gir in 2018) or a cyclone could wipe out the entire wild subspecies at one stroke. - Kuno is historical lion range, offering prey base and space free of Gir's saturation. - Genetic health: a founder-limited population risks inbreeding depression; a separate deme adds resilience.

Ecological arguments for caution - Lions live in stable prides; the Court itself noted translocation must draw from a single pride, making the exercise biologically delicate [4]. - Kuno now hosts the cheetah reintroduction, raising predator-competition and carrying-capacity questions. - Gujarat's alternative — Barda Wildlife Sanctuary, colonised naturally since 2023 and now holding 17 lions, plus gene-pool centres at Rampara and Satvirda [3] — offers in-state dispersal, though it lies within the same disease-and-disaster zone.

Federal considerations - Wildlife is on the Concurrent List; MoEFCC funds and frames Project Lion's landscape-ecology approach [5], while the Gujarat Forest Department implements and censuses [1]. - Gujarat's reluctance reflects regional pride and stewardship equity — the State bore the conservation cost for decades. Madhya Pradesh, having rehabilitated villages from Kuno [4], has a competing claim. - Non-compliance with a judicial direction weakens cooperative federalism and the trust needed for future inter-State species transfers.

India should pursue a second free-ranging home, but as a negotiated, phased translocation rather than an imposed transfer — with joint Centre-State monitoring, a shared veterinary and tracking protocol, and Barda strengthened meanwhile. Insurance against extinction is the constitutional duty under Article 48A; cooperative federalism is the means of discharging it.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. PIB — Parliament Question: Population of Asiatic Lions in Gir Forests (2025) — 891 lions, ~35,000 sq. km, 11 Saurashtra districts 2. PIB — Asiatic Lion Conservation Project, Rs 97.85 Cr central contribution — lion among 21 critically endangered species; disease control and veterinary care focus 3. PIB — Parliamentary Question: Rehabilitation of Asiatic Lions in Major Disaster — Barda as second habitat (17 lions since 2023); gene-pool centres at Rampara and Satvirda 4. Supreme Court, Centre for Environment Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCR 757 — direction for a second home at Kuno; single-pride translocation requirement; village rehabilitation from Kuno 5. PIB — Parliament Question: Project Asiatic Lion — Project Lion's landscape-ecology-based conservation framework