The proposed change in the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve has become one of Assam’s most important environmental and development debates in 2026.
The issue is often presented simply as a debate between 10 km and 1 km. But the legal and ecological position is more complicated.
Assam has proposed a site-specific ESZ around Kaziranga, with reports indicating a range of approximately 1 km to 3 km in different stretches. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has defended the move by arguing that the existing default 10-km regime creates difficulties for people living around Kaziranga and restricts development.
What exactly is happening?
Current position
A default 10-km ESZ framework continues around Kaziranga because a final site-specific ESZ notification has not replaced it.
Assam’s proposal
Assam is seeking a site-specific ESZ, reported at approximately 1–3 km in different areas, rather than retaining a uniform 10-km buffer.
Government’s argument
The state says the proposed approach follows the Supreme Court’s ESZ framework while reducing restrictions on settlements, infrastructure and livelihoods.
Conservation concern
Critics argue that Kaziranga cannot be protected by looking only at the park boundary because wildlife uses surrounding corridors, hills, rivers and flood refuges.
Kaziranga’s ESZ has become a major Assam environment issue
In August 2026, the Assam government publicly indicated that it would seek a formal site-specific ESZ notification for Kaziranga and reduce the extent from the default 10-km framework.
The announcement immediately triggered a wider debate involving the Assam government, opposition parties, conservation organisations, local residents, environmental activists and people living around Kaziranga.
The controversy is not simply about the number of kilometres. At its core are three competing questions:
- How much regulatory protection does the landscape around Kaziranga require?
- How should the rights and livelihoods of communities living around the park be protected?
- How can infrastructure and economic development occur without damaging wildlife corridors and ecological connectivity?
What is an Eco-Sensitive Zone?
An Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) is an area around protected areas such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries where certain activities are regulated, restricted or prohibited in order to reduce ecological pressure on the protected ecosystem.
The basic idea is that conservation should not suddenly stop at the legal boundary of a national park. Human settlements, roads, tourism, industries, agriculture, mining and other activities outside the protected area can still affect wildlife and ecological processes inside it.
Therefore, an ESZ should not be understood as a second national park. It is primarily a regulatory and ecological transition zone.
Why is there a 10-km ESZ around Kaziranga?
This is one of the most important points in the entire controversy.
The 10-km figure should not be described as though a final, site-specific Kaziranga ESZ notification permanently established a 10-km ring around the park.
Instead, the 10-km framework operates as a default/interim protection regime where the required site-specific proposal and notification process has not been completed.
In its order dated 12 March 2026, the Gauhati High Court recorded that the Assam government had not submitted either a final notification or a draft proposal for Kaziranga’s ESZ to the Central Government at that point. The Court therefore held that the 10-km ESZ direction remained operative.
The Court recorded that there was no final notification or draft ESZ proposal submitted by the Assam Government to the Central Government and therefore the 10-km ESZ remained operative.
This is why saying “the 10-km ESZ has already been cancelled” would be inaccurate as of September 2026.
What did the Supreme Court actually say?
The Supreme Court’s orders are central to the present debate.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court directed that protected forests, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries should have an ESZ of at least one kilometre from the demarcated boundary, subject to the wider protection already prescribed or proposed in particular cases.
However, the position was subsequently modified and clarified in April 2023. The Court recognised the difficulty of applying a uniform one-kilometre rule across India’s highly diverse protected-area landscapes.
Initial Supreme Court direction
The Court directed a minimum one-kilometre ESZ framework around protected areas, alongside restrictions including mining-related safeguards.
Modification and clarification
The Court modified the earlier uniform approach and clarified that existing draft/final notifications and proposals before the Ministry would be treated differently.
Kaziranga-specific dispute
The Gauhati High Court recorded that, as of March 2026, no draft/final Kaziranga ESZ proposal had been submitted by Assam to the Centre, meaning the 10-km default continued.
Why does Assam want a narrower, site-specific ESZ?
The Assam government’s central argument is that a blanket 10-km regulatory framework is difficult to apply uniformly around Kaziranga because the landscape includes villages, towns, agricultural land, roads, public infrastructure and other long-established human activities.
Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has argued that people living around Kaziranga should not face excessive restrictions merely because their settlements happen to fall within a large uniform buffer.
The government has also stressed that the core boundary of Kaziranga itself is not being reduced.
Government’s argument
- Use a site-specific rather than blanket approach.
- Follow the Supreme Court’s modified ESZ framework.
- Reduce unnecessary restrictions on local residents.
- Allow civic infrastructure and compatible development.
- Keep the protected-area boundary intact.
What critics worry about
- Loss of protection around critical wildlife corridors.
- Pressure from mining and quarrying.
- More construction near ecologically sensitive areas.
- Greater habitat fragmentation.
- Increased human-wildlife conflict.
Why are conservationists concerned about reducing the ESZ?
The strongest conservation argument is that wildlife does not recognise the administrative boundary of a national park.
Kaziranga is particularly dependent on the surrounding landscape because the Brahmaputra’s annual flooding can force animals to move towards higher ground. The Karbi Anglong hills south of Kaziranga therefore have enormous ecological importance.
If roads, buildings, quarrying, mining or other intensive activities obstruct these routes, the consequences can extend beyond the immediate project site.
This is why environmental organisations argue that the correct question is not simply “1 km or 10 km?” but rather:
Where is protection most ecologically necessary, and where can environmentally compatible human activity continue?
Aaranyak’s proposed approach: variable-width ESZ
Conservation organisation Aaranyak has argued against reducing the debate to one uniform radial distance.
Its August 2026 position supports a variable-width ESZ based on ecological sensitivity, wildlife requirements, hydrology, land use, settlement patterns and the legal framework.
This approach attempts to move beyond the false choice between “development” and “conservation” by asking whether different parts of the landscape require different levels of regulation.
Why are the nine Kaziranga–Karbi Anglong animal corridors so important?
Kaziranga is connected to the Karbi Anglong landscape through identified wildlife corridors. These corridors provide routes through which animals can move between habitats.
The Assam Government formally identified nine animal corridors connecting the Karbi Anglong hills and Kaziranga landscape in a 2022 notification.
A recent MoEFCC-related inspection report has again drawn attention to the need to notify and protect the nine identified corridors and address illegal constructions affecting them.
Why does mining keep appearing in the Kaziranga ESZ debate?
Mining and quarrying are particularly sensitive because the southern side of Kaziranga is linked to the Karbi Anglong hill landscape and the catchments of rivers and streams flowing towards the Kaziranga ecosystem.
The Supreme Court-related proceedings have previously dealt with mining, stone quarrying and construction issues around Kaziranga and the Karbi Anglong landscape.
The Gauhati High Court’s March 2026 order also referred to earlier directions concerning mining activities along the southern boundary and restrictions on new construction in the nine identified animal corridors.
Is this really a choice between development and conservation?
Not necessarily.
One of the most useful ways to understand the controversy is to separate environmentally compatible development from activities that can cause significant ecological damage.
Development needs
- Roads and public infrastructure
- Schools and healthcare facilities
- Housing and basic civic services
- Local businesses and livelihoods
- Tourism-related employment
Conservation needs
- Protected wildlife movement routes
- Flood refuges and ecological connectivity
- Protection of river and hill systems
- Control of destructive extraction
- Prevention of habitat fragmentation
A scientifically designed ESZ should therefore aim to identify which activities can coexist with conservation and which activities require strict prohibition or stronger regulation.
What about people living around Kaziranga?
The ESZ debate also has a genuine human dimension.
Villages and settlements around protected areas are not simply empty spaces waiting to be regulated. People have lived, farmed, worked and built communities around these landscapes for generations.
A blanket regulatory framework can therefore create practical difficulties when applied to ordinary household activities, civic infrastructure and local economic activity.
This is one reason why the Supreme Court’s later modification of its earlier uniform ESZ approach is important: India’s protected areas differ enormously in geography, population density and land-use patterns.
Why has the issue become politically sensitive?
The proposed ESZ reduction has triggered opposition from political parties and conservation voices that argue a narrower buffer could weaken environmental safeguards.
The Assam Congress organised statewide protests and padayatras in late August 2026 against the proposed reduction.
At the same time, reports have documented support for a site-specific approach among some residents who say that a blanket 10-km framework can make development and ordinary construction unnecessarily difficult.
Supports a site-specific ESZ and argues for development and livelihood concerns to be considered.
Criticises the proposed reduction and argues that stronger landscape-level protection is necessary.
Emphasise ecological sensitivity, wildlife corridors, science-based boundaries and community participation.
Views are not necessarily uniform: some support reduced restrictions while others fear ecological and livelihood consequences.
What has NOT changed?
Kaziranga’s core park boundary has not been reduced merely because the ESZ proposal is being discussed.
The proposal does not automatically mean that all restrictions disappear outside a 1-km line.
The 10-km default framework remains relevant until the final site-specific notification takes effect.
Wildlife corridors and other legal restrictions can have separate protection mechanisms.
Kaziranga’s ESZ issue is not new
The present controversy comes after years of attempts to formulate a site-specific ESZ for Kaziranga.
MoEFCC’s Expert Committee records show that an ESZ proposal for Kaziranga had previously been considered and that the Ministry had asked Assam to revise the proposal by integrating Kaziranga with adjoining protected areas.
The 41st ESZ Expert Committee meeting records also noted that an earlier proposal had an extent ranging from zero to 6.2 km at different locations and that concerns existed about treating Kaziranga separately rather than integrating the adjoining protected areas.
Why “1 km vs 10 km” is an oversimplification
The most important conceptual point is that distance alone does not determine ecological importance.
A one-kilometre area containing a critical elephant or rhino movement route may be more ecologically important than several kilometres of already urbanised land.
Conversely, applying exactly the same restrictions to every village, agricultural area and built-up settlement around a huge protected landscape may create unnecessary hardship without necessarily improving conservation.
A stronger approach is:
What happens after Assam’s proposal?
The state government’s proposal is not the final legal notification.
The next important stage is consideration of the site-specific proposal under the ESZ notification process at the Union level.
What is the real issue?
The Kaziranga ESZ controversy is ultimately a debate about how conservation and development should coexist around one of India’s most important wildlife landscapes.
The Assam government’s position is that a blanket 10-km regime is not appropriate for every location and that a scientifically determined, site-specific zone can protect Kaziranga while allowing communities to develop.
Conservationists and opponents of the reduction argue that Kaziranga’s ecological security depends on much more than its legal boundary. Floods, wildlife movement, the Karbi Anglong hills, river catchments and animal corridors make the surrounding landscape part of the conservation equation.
Therefore, the strongest question is not simply:
It is:
Kaziranga ESZ — Key Facts for Revision
One-line takeaway
Kaziranga ESZ: Assam proposes a site-specific 1–3 km approach, but the 10-km default remains operative until a final notification; the central conservation question is whether the new boundary adequately protects wildlife corridors and the wider Kaziranga–Karbi Anglong ecological landscape.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Kaziranga’s ESZ already been reduced from 10 km to 1 km?
No. As of 12 September 2026, Assam has proposed a site-specific ESZ, reported at approximately 1–3 km in different stretches. The 10-km default framework continues until a final site-specific ESZ notification is issued.
Does the proposal reduce the boundary of Kaziranga National Park?
No. The ESZ is an area outside the protected-area boundary where activities are regulated. The proposal does not itself reduce the core boundary of Kaziranga National Park.
Why is the 10-km ESZ important?
It currently operates as the default regulatory framework in the absence of a final site-specific ESZ notification for Kaziranga.
What did the Supreme Court say about the 1-km ESZ?
The Supreme Court’s 2022 order introduced a one-kilometre minimum framework, but the Court modified and clarified that position in April 2023. The legal position cannot accurately be reduced to a simple rule that every protected area must permanently have only a 1-km ESZ.
Why are the Karbi Anglong hills important to Kaziranga?
During seasonal flooding, wildlife can move towards higher ground in the Karbi Anglong landscape. The connectivity between Kaziranga and the hills therefore has major conservation importance.
How many wildlife corridors connect Kaziranga with Karbi Anglong?
Nine animal corridors have been identified connecting the Kaziranga landscape with the Karbi Anglong hills.
What is a variable-width ESZ?
It is an approach in which the width of the ESZ changes according to ecological sensitivity, wildlife movement, hydrology, land use, settlement patterns and other relevant factors rather than applying one uniform distance everywhere.
Who will ultimately decide the final ESZ?
The final site-specific ESZ notification follows the applicable process under the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Sources used for this article
This article has been prepared using primary legal/government material where available, supplemented by reporting and conservation-organisation statements for the latest developments and competing positions.
- Gauhati High Court — Jiten Engjai v. Union of India, order dated 12 March 2026.
- Supreme Court of India — ESZ orders in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad proceedings, including the June 2022 and April 2023 orders.
- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) — Minutes of the 41st ESZ Expert Committee Meeting, including discussion of the Kaziranga ESZ proposal.
- Government of Assam, Environment & Forest Department — Notification concerning the nine animal corridors connecting Kaziranga National Park and the Karbi Anglong Hills.
- Aaranyak — “Aaranyak’s stand vis-a-vis Kaziranga ESZ”, 20 August 2026.
- The Hindu — Reporting on the Assam Chief Minister’s defence of the proposed Kaziranga ESZ reduction.
- Times of India — Reporting on Assam’s proposed 1–3 km site-specific ESZ.
- Outlook India — Explainer on the 10-km versus 1-km Kaziranga ESZ debate.
- Assam Tribune — Reporting on the nine animal corridors and the wider conservation debate.
- NDTV — Reporting on local residents’ views regarding a site-specific ESZ.
- India Today NE — Reporting on protests and the political debate surrounding the proposal.
- ThePrint — Reporting on Assam Congress protests against the proposed ESZ reduction.
- Sentinel Assam — Reporting on the Assam government’s proposed 1-km approach and subsequent local developments.
- Northeast Now — Reporting on the nine corridors and developments surrounding the Kaziranga landscape.