Wildlife Protection – Commercial Film Shooting in Protected Areas – Interpretation of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Validity of Government Order.
(2025) 7 KCD 284 : 2025 KER 55597
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
WA NO. 2179 OF 2023; July 28, 2025
The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Nitin Jamdar & The Honourable Mr. Justice Basant Balaji
Issue: The central issue in this appeal concerned the permissibility of granting permission for commercial films and TV serials unrelated to the object of wild life protection and conservation in the protected areas (National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Tiger Reserves) under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Specifically, the appeal addressed whether such activities were permissible based on the Kerala Government Order dated March 30, 2013.
Background:
In 2019, a commercial movie outfit received permission from the Divisional Forest Officer, Kasaragod, to shoot a Malayalam film in the Kasaragod Forest Range, conditioned on daily fees and security deposits.
The Petitioner, Angels Nair, filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) No.1645 of 2019) challenging this permission, alleging extensive damage to the forest area.
The learned Single Judge found that permission was granted in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and other environmental laws, noting serious and irreparable damage. An enquiry committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change subsequently noted irregularities and recommended re-examination of the Government Order.
The Petitioner then filed another writ petition (W.P.(C) No.7107 of 2020), which was disposed of as necessary action had been taken. This appeal (WA No. 2179 of 2023) arose from the disposal of W.P.(C) No.7107 of 2020 and was treated as a Public Interest Litigation to address the wider issue.
Government Order (March 30, 2013): This order, issued by the Principal Secretary of the Forest and Wildlife Department, authorized Divisional Forest Officers to permit film shooting upon payment of prescribed fees and security deposits. It specified rates for commercial films (₹15,000/- per day), documentaries/TV serials/commercial photography (₹5,000/- per day), and exempted non-commercial educational films. The Court noted that this Order primarily dealt with fee revision and delegation of powers, and did not refer to any policy decision or statutory provision permitting commercial film activity in protected areas. Both the learned Single Judge and a Central Government Committee had suggested re-examining this Order. The State submitted that this was the only document permitting commercial film shooting.
Statutory Framework – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:
The Act was enacted for the conservation, protection, and management of wild life to ensure ecological and environmental security.
Chapter IV deals with protected areas, declared for protecting, propagating, or developing wild life or its environment.
Sections 27, 28, and 29 impose restrictions on entry and activities within sanctuaries.
Section 28 specifically deals with the grant of permits by the Chief Wild Life Warden to enter or reside in a sanctuary for purposes such as: (a) investigation or study of wild life, (b) photography and film-making without making any change in the habitat or causing any adverse impact to the habitat or wild life, (c) scientific research, (d) tourism, and (e) transaction of lawful business with residents. The phrase “film-making without making any change in the habitat or causing any adverse impact to the habitat or wild life” was inserted by an amendment effective December 19, 2022.
Court’s Interpretation of “Film-making” under Section 28:
The Court applied the principle of ‘noscitur a sociis’, meaning the meaning of a word is understood in the context of the words surrounding it.
It held that “film-making” under Section 28 is not a separate, standalone activity, but is linked to other permitted objects such as research, study, or regulated tourism.
It cannot be interpreted as an independent activity divorced from the objectives of research, education, or regulated tourism. Any permitted film-making must be in furtherance of a lawful and limited purpose under Section 28 and shall not result in any alteration of habitat or disturbance to wild life.
The statutory scheme and broader constitutional principles, including Article 48A (State’s duty to protect environment), Article 51A(g) (citizen’s fundamental duty to protect environment), and the Public Trust Doctrine (State as trustee of natural resources), indicate that “film-making” needs to be read narrowly. The Court emphasized that treating permissions as merely a revenue-generating exercise is contrary to these principles.
Decision:
The Court declared that the Government Order dated March 30, 2013, issued by the State of Kerala, does not have the force of law to permit commercial film-making and commercial television serials in Wildlife Sanctuaries, National Parks, and Tiger Reserves, as it is contrary to the scheme of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
The State Government is directed to issue appropriate follow-up instructions to the Forest Department officers within four weeks.
The Court clarified that the question of the legal effect of any future statutory amendment or policy permitting commercial film shooting has not arisen and thus, the challenge to the validity of such future enactment or policy is kept open.
Other prayers in the writ petition were not addressed further as relevant reports had been filed and action initiated.
