Environmental Clearance vs Wildlife Clearance: Project Impacts and Protection of Wildlife Habitats

A highway through a tiger corridor, a mine near a sanctuary, or a transmission line across a bustard habitat raises questions that ordinary environmental assessment does not fully answer: will the project fragment a habitat, cut off a migration route or push a species closer to extinction? Wildlife clearance under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 answers these questions for projects in or near protected areas, through the National Board for Wildlife. It is distinct from, and additional to, environmental clearance under the EIA Notification.

1. Environmental Clearance

Environmental clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006 is required for projects listed in its Schedule and is granted by the MoEFCC or the SEIAA after impact assessment and public consultation. The Notification contains a general condition: a Category B project located wholly or partly within ten kilometres of a protected area, a critically polluted area, an eco-sensitive area or an inter-State or international boundary is treated as Category A, so that it is appraised at the Centre. The EC process itself does not grant permission to use a protected area.

2. Wildlife Clearance

Wildlife clearance is the approval required under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for activities affecting wildlife habitats. Its main forms are:

1. Within a sanctuary or national park: under Section 29 (sanctuaries) and Section 35(6) (national parks), no person may destroy, exploit or remove wildlife or forest produce, or destroy or divert habitat, except under a permit granted by the Chief Wildlife Warden, and only if the State Government, in consultation with the National Board for Wildlife, is satisfied that it is necessary for the improvement and better management of wildlife. In practice, projects in protected areas are placed before the Standing Committee of the NBWL (chaired by the Environment Minister);
2. Eco-sensitive zones and the ten-kilometre rule: projects within notified eco-sensitive zones around protected areas, or within ten kilometres of a protected area where the ESZ has not been notified, require consideration by the NBWL Standing Committee, following the Supreme Court's orders in Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2006) and Ministry guidelines;
3. Tiger reserves and corridors: projects in tiger reserves or tiger corridors require the recommendation of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (Section 38O), and core or critical tiger habitats are to be kept inviolate; and
4. Alteration of boundaries: under Section 26A(3) and Section 35(5), the boundaries of sanctuaries and national parks cannot be altered except on the recommendation of the NBWL.

The Supreme Court has added a strong protective layer: in Goa Foundation (2022 and 2023 orders) and In re Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary (13 November 2025), it held that mining within a national park or sanctuary and within one kilometre of its boundary is not permissible anywhere in India. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), it required an expert-led approach to power lines in the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard.

3. Key Differences

4. Relationship

EC and wildlife clearance are independent and cumulative: a project in or near a protected area needs both (and usually forest clearance too). The EIA should assess wildlife impacts and propose mitigation, but that does not replace NBWL approval. The Ministry often makes EC subject to wildlife clearance, and courts and the NGT have set aside ECs granted before wildlife clearance or without disclosure of proximity to protected areas. Critics note that the NBWL Standing Committee approves the great majority of proposals placed before it, and that wildlife clearance lacks public participation.

5. Related Topics and Provisions