A controversial practice by the Rajasthan forest department in Jaipur, involving the issuance of official 'distance certificates' to commercial establishments situated near the Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary, has ignited significant criticism from legal experts and environmental activists. They allege these certificates blatantly contradict the sanctuary's legally notified boundaries.
What Are These Controversial Certificates?
Documents accessed by TOI reveal that in just the past three months, the department has issued a total of 35 such certificates to operators of M-sand plants, group housing societies, and mining projects. A distance certificate is an official document provided by the forest department to certify the distance of a commercial establishment from the boundaries of a wildlife sanctuary and its surrounding Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ). Authorities state these are issued strictly based on the officially notified sanctuary and ESZ boundaries.
The Core of the Controversy: Shifting Boundaries?
The conflict arises from an apparent contradiction. Environmental lawyer Vaibhav Pancholy pointedly questioned the department's stance, asking, "The forest department is issuing distance certificates based on the current map, while simultaneously claiming that the sanctuary's boundaries are uncertain. If the boundaries are revised, will these certificates be withdrawn if the area falls under the ESZ?"
The issue has deep roots. The Nahargarh Wildlife Sanctuary was first notified in 1980 under Section 18 of the Wildlife Protection Act, with the district collector issuing the official proclamation in 1998. According to the authoritative 2012 sanctuary map, the eastern boundary legally includes the Delhi-Amer Road and the revenue villages of Nahargarh and Amer.
However, RTI activist Rajendra Tiwari claims that recent maps prepared by forest officials have allegedly excluded these very areas. "Excluding these areas places commercial establishments outside the sanctuary limits, even though they are legally within it," Tiwari stated, suggesting this benefits commercial operators seeking clearance.
Official Inaction and an Internal Inquiry
The situation is further muddied by findings of an internal inquiry. An investigation directed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and chief wildlife warden found that the then deputy conservator of forests (DCF) had submitted incorrect information to the National Green Tribunal. The inquiry report cited "disputed and uncertain" boundaries as a reason for the department's inaction on the matter.
When contacted for a statement on Wednesday, the DFO of Nahargarh refused to comment on the allegations, leaving the questions raised by advocates and activists unanswered. The practice continues to raise serious concerns about the protection of ecologically sensitive zones and the potential for regulatory loopholes favoring commercial interests over conservation.
