Sun Dec 14 13:35:33 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a news article summary of the provided text, styled for a news outlet:

Headline: Kali Tiger Reserve Relocation Project Faces Scrutiny Over Alleged Consent Violations

Mysuru, December 14, 2025 – A controversial relocation project at the Kali Tiger Reserve in Uttara Kannada district is under fire as activists allege that mandatory consent procedures for displacing forest-dwelling communities were bypassed. The project, intended to relocate villagers outside the reserve to enhance tiger conservation, is accused of violating the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and guidelines set by the National Tiger Conservation Authority.

The crux of the issue centers on the absence of Grama Sabha meetings, a legal prerequisite for relocation projects. Activists, armed with information obtained through Right to Information (RTI) requests, claim that several Gram Sabhas in the region did not hold the required meetings to grant their consent before the relocation of families commenced.

According to the relocation scheme, communities’ approval is required before the proposals are placed before the district-level committee headed by the deputy commissioner of the respective districts. However, RTI information indicates that meetings did not happen in places including Ulavi, Gangoda, Nandigadde, Badakan-Shirada, Kadra, Gotegali and Ambikanagar.

The issue was previously raised in the Legislative Council by MLC Shantaram Siddi, with Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre reporting that 498 families were relocated from the Kali Tiger Reserve between 2020 and 2025 after compensation. Despite these claims, Panchayat records reportedly contradict this, revealing that Gram Sabha meetings were not conducted in the affected villages.

This raises serious questions about the transparency and legality of the relocation process and whether the necessary checks and balances were adhered to. Activists are now questioning how the district-level committee approved the relocations without proper Gram Sabha consent, raising concerns about a potentially flawed conservation model that prioritizes tourism over the rights of local communities. The controversy is expected to fuel further debate on the ethical considerations of conservation efforts and the need to ensure community involvement in such initiatives.

Read More