Environment & Ecology
Why Karnataka Rejected the Western Ghats ESA Draft: Gadgil vs Kasturirangan Explained
By Shivam Singh, Founder & Mentor, Minimalist IAS
· Updated · 7 min read
WhatsApp Telegram
Karnataka has rejected the Centre's seventh draft notification declaring parts of the Western Ghats an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA), in which its own share, 20,668 sq km across 10 districts, is the largest. Both Houses of its legislature want a year for a physical survey first. The dispute is the old Gadgil vs Kasturirangan question: protect the whole range, or only its natural landscape.
Why in news: Both Houses of the Karnataka Legislature unanimously rejected the Centre's seventh draft ESA notification, based on the Kasturirangan Committee report, and sought one year for a survey-number-wise physical demarcation before any area is finalised.
Updated (October 2026): Area figures re-checked against the draft's state-wise split; Gadgil's area corrected to its own base; comparison table, traps and revision added.
Key facts at a glance
The draft: seventh since 2014; 56,825.7 sq km of ESA across six States (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu), issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Karnataka's share: 20,668 sq km in 10 districts, about 36% of the total and the largest of any State.
The resolution: moved by Forest Minister Ramalinga Reddy; unanimous in both Houses; asks that nothing be finalised for a year.
Gadgil vs Kasturirangan: two committees, two scales
Every ESA draft since 2014 rests on one of two reports, so the difference between them is the key to the whole dispute.
Feature | Gadgil Committee (WGEEP) | Kasturirangan Committee (HLWG) |
|---|---|---|
Report | 2011 | 2013 |
Area it mapped | About 1,29,037 sq km of Western Ghats | About 1.64 lakh sq km of Western Ghats |
What is sensitive | The whole range as ESA, graded into ESZ 1, 2 and 3 | Only the natural landscape: about 37%, or 59,940 sq km |
Settlements, farms, plantations | Inside the graded zones; local Gram Sabhas given a voice | Cultural landscape, left outside the ESA |
Approach | Precautionary, bottom-up | Balance of conservation and development |
Fate | Opposed by the Ghats States | Basis of every draft notification since 2014 |
Remember it as: Gadgil = whole range, in graded zones; Kasturirangan = only the natural landscape. Analogy: Gadgil is one speed limit for the whole highway, strictest at the bends; Kasturirangan limits only the forest stretches.
What would the ESA restrict?
Having seen how much land is in, the next question is what the label actually forbids.
Banned: new mining, quarrying and sand mining (existing mines phased out); new thermal power plants; red-category industries; large construction projects of 20,000 sq m built-up area and above.
Regulated, not banned: other development, through environmental clearance.
Allowed with conditions: repair of existing houses; hydropower only with a cumulative impact study and at least 30% of river flow kept in the lean season.
Continues: agriculture and plantations.
Why did Karnataka reject the draft?
Even a light-touch ESA bites on the ground, and Karnataka, with the biggest share, says the map itself is wrong.
Data: boundaries use satellite imagery without a joint physical survey, so forest, revenue and farm land are not separated (about 1,449 villages in the resolution's count).
The village rule: Karnataka says an entire village can fall in the ESA merely because about one-fifth of its area qualifies.
Pending land issues: forest rights claims, land grants and court cases are unsettled.
Worked example (illustration): a village of 1,000 ha where 200 ha is forest. Under the rule as Karnataka describes it, all 1,000 ha, including 800 ha of farms and homes, is ESA; a plot-level survey would mark only 200 ha.
Is there a middle path?
Karnataka's demand for a ground survey is not new, and another State has already shown how it can work.
Kerala's route: its Oommen V Oommen committee ground-truthed the ESA village by village, cutting it from 13,108 sq km to 9,993.7 sq km, the figure now in the draft.
Karnataka's plan: a high-level committee under a retired judge, with revenue officials, farmers and experts, to demarcate survey number by survey number.
The risk: seven drafts in 12 years, and still no final protection.
What is at stake?
A survey settles the map, but the larger contest is between four interests that all have a claim on the Ghats.
Environmental: UNESCO World Heritage Site (2012) and part of the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot; source of the Godavari, Krishna and Kaveri systems.
Disaster risk: steep, rain-soaked slopes prone to landslides (Wayanad, Kerala, July 2024); experts link quarrying and land-use change to higher risk.
Federal: a shared ecosystem across six States vs State control over land and revenue records.
Way forward: time-bound ground survey; plot-level demarcation; settle forest rights claims first; payments for ecosystem services.
Why it matters for UPSC
The syllabus lines are clear. GS Paper 3: conservation, environmental impact assessment, disaster management. GS Paper 1: physical geography of India. GS Paper 2: Centre-State relations. For Prelims, the two committees, the legal basis and the ESA vs protected-area distinction are testable. For Mains, the case is a ready example of conservation vs livelihood and of federal friction; compare the Great Nicobar project.
Mentor's note
Putting that into an answer:
Do not call Gadgil right and Kasturirangan wrong. Contrast precautionary with accommodative, then argue for plot-level ground-truthing, as Kerala did.
Keep three numbers apart. Kasturirangan recommended 59,940 sq km; the draft proposes 56,825.7 sq km; Karnataka's share of the draft is 20,668 sq km.
UPSC has asked about these reports. Prelims 2016 asked what the two reports relate to; Mains 2018 (GS II) used the Western Ghats as an illustration of policy contradictions.
Prelims traps
Trap 1: Gadgil proposed the whole range as ESA, in graded zones; Kasturirangan proposed only the natural landscape (about 37%).
Trap 2: Gadgil's 1,29,037 sq km and Kasturirangan's 1.64 lakh sq km are different bases; do not compare them as like for like.
Trap 3: 59,940 (committee), 56,825.7 (draft), 20,668 (Karnataka) are three different numbers.
Trap 4: an ESA is notified by the Centre under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; it is not a national park or sanctuary.
60-second revision
Q: Which committee proposed the whole Ghats as ESA? Gadgil (2011), in three zones.
Q: How much did Kasturirangan propose? Natural landscape only, about 37% (59,940 sq km).
Q: Total area in the seventh draft, and Karnataka's share? 56,825.7 sq km; 20,668 sq km.
Q: Karnataka's core objection? Satellite-based map, no joint survey, whole-village inclusion.
Q: Which State's ground survey is the model? Kerala (13,108 to 9,993.7 sq km).
Related PYQs
UPSC CSE Prelims 2016:
'Gadgil Committee Report' and 'Kasturirangan Committee Report', sometimes seen in the news, are related to
(a) constitutional reforms
(b) Ganga Action Plan
(c) linking of rivers
(d) protection of Western Ghats
Answer: (d)
Use: both reports concern the Western Ghats.
UPSC CSE Mains 2018, GS Paper II:
“Policy contradictions among various competing sectors and stakeholders have resulted in inadequate ‘protection and prevention of degradation’ to environment.” Comment with relevant illustrations. (Answer in 150 words; 10 Marks)
Use: cite the Ghats States' opposition to Gadgil and Kerala's ground-truthing as the Centre-State illustration.
See the detailed explanations: Prelims 2016 · Mains 2018 in the free PYQ vault, with year-wise analysis. Free to browse; free sign-up to download.
Practice: Prelims MCQ
Consider the following statements about the Western Ghats:
ESAs in the Western Ghats are proposed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The Kasturirangan Committee recommended only the natural landscape as ESA, about 37% of the area.
The Gadgil Committee recommended that only the natural landscape be notified as ESA.
The Western Ghats were inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012.
How many of the above statements are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) Only three
(d) All four
Answer: (c) Only three
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: ESA notifications are issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Statement 2 is correct: the HLWG limited the ESA to about 37% (59,940 sq km).
Statement 3 is incorrect: that is Kasturirangan's approach; Gadgil treated the whole range as sensitive, in three zones.
Statement 4 is correct: inscribed in 2012.
Practice: Mains question
Examine why the notification of the Ecologically Sensitive Area in the Western Ghats has remained unresolved for over a decade. Suggest a way forward that balances conservation with livelihoods. (Answer in 250 words; 15 Marks)
Terms to know
WGEEP: Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (the Gadgil Committee)
HLWG: High-Level Working Group (the Kasturirangan Committee)
ESZ: Ecologically Sensitive Zone, Gadgil's graded zones 1 to 3
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
How much area does the current Western Ghats ESA draft cover?
The seventh draft proposes 56,825.7 sq km as ESA across six States. Karnataka's share, 20,668 sq km in 10 districts, is the largest. It is a draft, not a final notification.
Why did Karnataka reject the Western Ghats ESA draft?
Karnataka says the boundaries rely on satellite data without a physical survey, may pull whole villages in on a one-fifth rule, and ignore pending forest-rights claims. It wants a year for a survey.
What is the difference between the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports?
Gadgil (2011) treated the whole Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive in three zones. Kasturirangan (2013) limited the ESA to the natural landscape, about 37% or 59,940 sq km, leaving settlements outside.
What activities would be banned in the Western Ghats ESA?
New mining, quarrying and sand mining, new thermal power plants, red-category industries and large construction projects are banned. Other development needs environmental clearance; farming and plantations continue.
Related reading
Sources
From The Daily UPSC Brief, 27 September 2026 — by Shivam Singh.
Spotted an error or something outdated? Tell us — we correct it.
About the author
Shivam Singh
Founder & Mentor, Minimalist IAS
Shivam has been through every stage of the exam himself — Prelims, repeated Mains attempts across UPSC and state civil services, and the interview board. For 7 years he has mentored aspirants one-to-one, helping 100+ clear various stages of the exam, including final selections.
More about Shivam →Struggling to structure answers on Why Karnataka Rejected the Western Gha…?
Reading model answers shows the standard; writing under exam pressure reveals your actual blind spots. Write your answer to any question on Why Karnataka Rejected the Western Gha…, upload your handwritten PDF copy, and Shivam will personally evaluate your first answer — highlighting structural flow, examiner traps, and high-yield value additions.
