Visitors to Ranthambore National Park would miss Ustad, the nine-year-old tiger, as the Supreme Court on Monday approved shifting of the big cat to Udaipur Zoo after he reportedly mauled an on duty forest guard.
The vacation Bench of Justices PC Pant and Amitava Roy said, “In such matters we cannot have a legalistic approach.” The Court was referring to the petition filed by a wildlife enthusiast Chandra Bhal Singh who opposed Ustad’s shifting alleging the State officials failed to take prior approval from Wildlife authorities.
Taking note of the fact that Ustad, codenamed T-24 in Ranthambore National Park, had mauled four persons in five years, the Bench said, “We should not interfere in this case as the tiger has killed several persons.” The situation would be quite different if the authorities decided to kill the tiger or keep it in captivity, it added.
One of the judges admitted that he knew Ustaad well. “We know this tiger. I have seen him and the skill he demonstrates,” said Justice Roy, adding, “It’s not a case of captivity. It’s a case of shifting from one National Park to another. By now he must have acclimatised to the new environment.”
Ustad was shifted on May 17 to Sajjangarh Park, an upcoming reserve after he mauled a forest guard earlier last month. After he was moved to his new enclosure, he refused to take food offered to him. The petition pointed out that Ustad, who ruled the open tracks of Ranthambore, should not be kept in captivity and a committee must examine what is best in the interest of the animal.
The petition was dismissed earlier by Rajasthan High Court which stuck by the State’s decision. It said that the decision to shift the tiger was made in haste without conducting any scientific study whether it could cope up with the new environment. The petition even alleged some business lobbies to be at the back of this decision as it harmed the flow of visitors to the National Park. The apex court said, “This is more in the nature of a publicity litigation,” thus putting a quietus to the entire controversy.