Forest fire is a recurring feature of the Himalayan dry season, and Rajaji sits inside that belt. What follows is not a report on fire operations at the reserve this year. It is a reading of four dated public documents, two peer-reviewed papers and two sanctioned government plans, plus one Supreme Court order that changes how an older judgment should be read. Every figure is stamped with its source and its year, and the closing section says plainly what these documents do not establish.
Sources used, all checked on 22 October 2026: Joshi, R. & R. Singh (2010). Impact of Forest Fires and Shrinking Water Sources on the Elephants of Rajaji National Park, North-West India. Iranica Journal of Energy & Environment 1(4): 305-314, open PDF, received 28 September 2010 and accepted 5 November 2010; Negi, G.C.S. (2019). Forest Fire in Uttarakhand: Causes, Consequences and Remedial Measures. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 45(1): 31-37, open PDF; the Rajaji Annual Plan of Operation sanction order for 2022-23 dated 15 December 2022, NTCA PDF; the Uttarakhand state sanction for 2023-24 dated 15 September 2023, NTCA PDF; and the Supreme Court order of 23 July 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 1249 of 2019, PDF.
Why fire belongs in a Rajaji conversation
The 2010 range study places the fire season between March and June, describes the fires it observed as mainly surface fires that sometimes turn into crown fire because of terrain and fuel, and reports that in the Shivalik foothills the limited studies available suggest that fires are entirely of anthropogenic origin. It also reports, as its own field observation from that period, that the maximum number of fire cases was observed near areas adjoining human settlements, near Gujjar shelters, near villages, near agricultural land, near religious places inside the forest, and especially in forests traditionally used for collection of fuel wood and fodder. That is one study reporting ignition locations during 2007 to 2009, in a list that puts several kinds of place side by side. It is not a finding about any community, it is not a statement about who lights fires today, and this article will not use it as one.
The range study of 2007 to 2009
Joshi and Singh, published in 2010, recorded fire-affected area in two forest ranges of Rajaji National Park. Their Table 1 gives Chilla at 75 hectares in 2007, 95 hectares in 2008 and 60 hectares in 2009, with corresponding percentages of forest burned at 0.50, 0.64 and 0.40. For the Haridwar forest range the same table gives 120 hectares in 2007, 95 hectares in 2008 and 105 hectares in 2009, at 1.40, 1.11 and 1.23 per cent. Added up year by year, those pairs total 195 hectares, 190 hectares and 165 hectares. The paper also records, for the 2008 season, that about 140 hectares of Gohri forest near Kandakhal village was destroyed when an accidental fire ran out of control, and it reports post-fire observations of burned porcupine burrows and vulture nests.
There is a problem inside that publication, and it is worth stating rather than smoothing over. The abstract of the same paper opens by saying that every year wildfires in Rajaji National Park destroy more than 250 hectares of landscape. That figure does not reconcile with the paper own table for any of the three years it studied. This article uses the table figures, because those are the reserve-specific records tied to named ranges and named years, and it reports the abstract figure only as an internal discrepancy. If you want the vegetation context behind those hectares, our habitats and flora guide covers what is burning, and our rivers and waterholes guide covers the dry-season water picture the same paper links to elephant movement.
The 2016 episode, and the one reserve-specific figure in it
Negi, published in 2019, writes about the April to early June 2016 fire episode in Uttarakhand. He records 2,069 forest fire incidents affecting 4,423.35 hectares across the state, the maximum in Pauri at 1,032 hectares and the least in Udham Singh Nagar at 15 hectares, plus a further 104 hectares of forest plantation. He records a loss estimated at Rs 4.62 million at the Forest Department scheduled rates for pine forests, and notes that newspaper estimates during April and May 2016 placed the figure far higher. He also records that the state deployed three National Disaster Response Force teams, raised the number of forest officials from 3,000 to 6,000, engaged two Indian Air Force helicopters, and that the fires were suppressed by excessive rains from the first week of May.
The reserve-specific line is one sentence in that paper, and it is the only post-2010 reserve-level area figure located for this article: among the protected areas affected by that episode, Corbett National Park lost 261 hectares, Rajaji National Park lost 70 hectares, and Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary lost 60 hectares. That 70 hectare figure belongs to the 2016 episode and to no other year. For what a dry season looks like from a vehicle at this reserve, our wildlife calendar and our best time to visit guide cover the seasonal window, and our monsoon closure guide covers what follows it.
What the sanctioned plans actually say about fire at Rajaji
Annual Plan of Operation sanctions are funding documents. They name works and amounts for a financial year, and they do not certify completion. Two of them carry fire-related lines for this reserve.
- Rajaji APO, first instalment 2022-23, dated 15 December 2022. The sanction order, issued from the Project Tiger Division of the ministry at a scheme cost of Rs 765.72 lakh, carries an annexure line for establishment of watch towers under reference 16.2.4, located at Motichur, for one unit at Rs 9 lakh. The justification column states that the fund will be used for the creation of a new watch tower for early detection of forest fires and also for night halts by patrol units. The NTCA documents page, which describes how these plans are funded, lists fire protection among the recurring activities these proposals are expected to cover.
- Uttarakhand state sanction 2023-24, dated 15 September 2023. This sanction continues the state scheme at a cost of Rs 2,623.8890 lakh and copies the Field Directors of Corbett and Rajaji Tiger Reserves. Its Rajaji annexure carries a line titled Maintenance of fire lines, with the location given as all ranges, a printed physical target of 165, a unit cost of Rs 0.04 lakh and a printed amount of Rs 16.00 lakh, justified as maintenance of fire lines in the forest area. The printed target and the printed amount do not multiply out exactly in the scanned annexure, so this article reports both as printed rather than deriving one from the other. The same annexure also carries a Motichur watch-tower line at Rs 7.00 lakh whose justification again refers to early detection of forest fires.
One absence is worth recording. A line for wages of fire watchers was not readable in the Rajaji annexure of that 2023-24 sanction, although such lines do appear in the annexures of other tiger reserves in the same document. This article therefore claims no Rajaji fire-watcher figure. The NTCA documents page describes how these funds are classified, and lists fire protection among the recurring items these plans are expected to cover.
A sanction is not a sighting
Two words do the work here: sanctioned and built. A watchtower line at Motichur in the 2022-23 sanction, and a similar line at Rs 7.00 lakh in the 2023-24 state annexure, mean that money was approved for that work in those financial years. They do not mean a tower now stands at Motichur, and nothing located in the public sources checked on 22 October 2026 confirms one. The same holds for the fire lines: a target for maintenance across all ranges is a plan input, not a record of kilometres cleared. Our myths and facts page covers the general habit of reading a plan as an outcome, and our research and monitoring article covers how a different kind of document, a survey report, should be read.
The 2016 statewide directions are no longer operative
The High Court of Uttarakhand passed a judgment in 2016 on a statewide record of forest fires, having taken judicial notice of frequent fires across 13 districts between April and May 2016. On 23 July 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered an order in Civil Appeal No. 1249 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand and another versus In the Matter of the Protection of Forest, Environment, Ecology, Wildlife etc. from the Forest Fire and others, with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 767 of 2019. The order records that the affidavits before the High Court revealed 1,798 reported incidents during the 2015-2016 season affecting 3,948.15 hectares; that an extensive series of directions had been issued more than a decade ago but, owing to an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court in 2017, their implementation and efficacy could not be meaningfully assessed; that many of the directions appeared to have since been substantially implemented by the state and the Union; and that incidents of forest fire nevertheless continue to recur every year. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the writ petition in part, set aside the impugned High Court judgment, and remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration, recording the view that considerable changes had taken place on the ground, that the balance between more manpower and more scientific detection is open to debate, and that the jurisdictional High Court is better placed to monitor and issue periodic directions in light of changing circumstances and local requirements.
The practical consequence for a reader is simple. Anyone citing the 2016 directions, or a figure that flows from them, as a live obligation at Rajaji is citing a judgment that was set aside on 23 July 2026 and remitted for fresh consideration. This article therefore treats the 2016 directions as historic rather than operative.
What these documents do not establish
They do not establish anything about fire operations at Rajaji during the current season. No reserve-specific burned-area figure later than 2016 was located in the public sources checked on 22 October 2026, so this article publishes no current figure and makes no claim that fire is or is not under control at the reserve. The two papers are dated 2010 and 2019, and the two sanctions cover the 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years. National and state totals are reported here only where the source itself reports them alongside the reserve figure, and they are never presented as reserve-specific claims. Nor is anything here a statement about how fire risk affects a particular village or community, which these documents do not support.
If you want to plan around the season rather than read about it, our closure and contingency planning guide covers what to do when a season shifts, our responsible travel guide covers conduct inside the reserve, and our animals list covers the species these documents are ultimately about.
Forest fire in Rajaji questions answered
How much forest does fire burn in Rajaji?
Only dated figures are given here. The range study by Joshi and Singh, published in 2010, recorded 75 ha of Chilla forest and 120 ha of Haridwar forest burned in 2007, 95 ha and 95 ha in 2008, and 60 ha and 105 ha in 2009, which total 195 ha, 190 ha and 165 ha for those three years. A statewide study by Negi, published in 2019, records that Rajaji National Park lost 70 ha to forest fire during the Uttarakhand episode of 2016. No later reserve-specific area figure was located in the public sources checked on 22 October 2026, and this article publishes no current figure.
Why do the 2010 paper figures not match its own abstract?
Because the abstract and the table disagree, and this article flags that rather than choosing silently between them. The abstract of the Joshi and Singh paper states that every year wildfires in Rajaji National Park destroy more than 250 hectares. The area table in the same paper gives Chilla at 75, 95 and 60 hectares and Haridwar at 120, 95 and 105 hectares for 2007, 2008 and 2009, which sum to 195, 190 and 165 hectares. This article uses the table figures, because they are the reserve-specific records tied to named ranges and named years, and reports the abstract figure only as a discrepancy inside the same publication.
Is the Motichur watchtower built?
The documents used here show it sanctioned, not built. The Rajaji Annual Plan of Operation sanction order dated 15 December 2022, at a scheme cost of Rs 765.72 lakh, carries an annexure line for establishment of watch towers at Motichur for one unit at Rs 9 lakh, with a justification that the fund will be used for the creation of a new watch tower for early detection of forest fires and also for night halts by patrol units. The Uttarakhand state sanction dated 15 September 2023 carries a similar Motichur watch-tower line at Rs 7.00 lakh in its Rajaji annexure. Neither document records completion, and nothing located in the public sources checked on 22 October 2026 confirms that a watchtower now stands there.
Do the annual plans fund fire lines and fire watchers at Rajaji?
The Rajaji annexure to the state sanction dated 15 September 2023 publishes a line titled Maintenance of fire lines, with the location given as all ranges, a printed physical target of 165, a unit cost of Rs 0.04 lakh and a printed amount of Rs 16.00 lakh, justified as maintenance of fire lines in the forest area. The printed target and the printed amount do not multiply out exactly in the scanned annexure, so this article reports both as printed rather than deriving one from the other. A line for wages of fire watchers was not readable in the Rajaji annexure of that sanction, although such lines appear in the annexures of other tiger reserves in the same document, so no Rajaji fire-watcher figure is claimed here. All of these are sanctioned targets for a financial year, not records of work completed.
Are the old High Court directions on forest fires still in force?
No. The directions came from a 2016 judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court on a statewide record of forest fires. On 23 July 2026, the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1249 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand and another versus In the Matter of the Protection of Forest, Environment, Ecology, Wildlife etc. from the Forest Fire and others, with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 767 of 2019, allowed the appeal and the writ petition in part, set aside the impugned High Court judgment and remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration. The order records that the directions had remained under stay for nearly a decade and that forest fire incidents nevertheless continue to recur every year. This article therefore does not present the 2016 directions as operative.