The Central Empowered Committee (CEC), headed by Chairman Siddhanta Das, on Wednesday (January 7) submitted its report to the Supreme Court, recommending that the Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Bengaluru’s Bannerghatta National Park (BNP) should be restored to its original 2016 extent. The ESZ’s area was considerably reduced in 2020 after the publication of a government notification.
Here is a look at the dispute over the area of Bannerghatta’s ESZ and the recommendations of the CEC report.
In 2016, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) had submitted a draft notification which set the total area of the ESZ of BNP at 268.9 sq km. However, this notification lapsed as the state Government under Chief Minister Siddaramaiah did not submit its views.
Later, in October 2018, another draft notification from the Ministry was released, which reduced the ESZ to 168.68 sq km. The development came after in July 2018, then BJP Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar had sent a letter to then Environment Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan, highlighting issues such as illegal mining and quarrying, which were causing human-animal conflict. Chandrasekhar had requested a team to be deputed to examine the ESZ.
Environmentalist Vijay Nishanth told The Indian Express, “One problem was the mining which was being done in eco-sensitive areas, which we proved… Real estate mafias were also pressuring to get in as Bengaluru was growing. People find it hard to believe that there are elephant populations living just 20 km from the city.”
In 2020, the Centre finalised the ESZ size at 168.64 sq km during the tenure of BS Yediyurappa as chief minister.
Three years later, Bengaluru resident Kiran Urs submitted an application before the CEC, which resulted in the Committee seeking a response from the state government. Kiran Urs had stated in his application that the ESZ area was being degraded by industrial and real estate interests.
The recent report by the CEC came in the wake of an interlocutory application filed in the Supreme Court by activist K B Belliappa and other petitioners in 2025.
After an exhaustive examination of the issue in a document that exceeds five hundred pages, the CEC has laid out several key conditions after the recent visit by their team to BNP.
The report recommends the withdrawal of the 2020 ESZ notification, stating that it “excludes scientifically identified elephant corridors and ecologically important patches forming part of the Bannerghatta National Park landscape”.
It also recommends the restoration of the original 2016 notification, with alterations to be permitted only in the case of “dense, irreversible urban developments”. These must also not affect wildlife corridors or the “buffer functionality” of the ESZ, and the report goes on to note that it must not affect ecologically significant areas.
Any alterations will have to be based on a detailed justification from an expert committee that will not create a precedent.
Noting the importance of elephant corridors, the CEC’s report pointed out that with regard to several village areas near the southern part of BNP, the ESZ width was delineated at 100 metres, and incidents of human-animal conflict were increasing.
The area also lies along the movement of elephants from Cauvery National Park to BNP. In this context, the report recommended that the buffer width and delineation be considered.
The committee also recommended that the State Government communicate to the public that the ESZ was “not intended to hamper the day-to-day activities or legitimate livelihoods of local communities, but are meant to protect the precious forests and Protected Areas in their vicinity from adverse and irreversible impacts”.
Curated by Dr. Elena Rodriguez
