Analysis Of Wildlife Protection Offences
Wildlife protection in India is primarily governed by:
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA)
Deals with protection of wild animals, birds, and plants
Regulates hunting, trade, and possession of endangered species
Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions sometimes used in conjunction, e.g., sections on criminal breach of trust, illegal trade, etc.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – India is a signatory
Key Offences under WPA:
Hunting of wild animals (Section 9)
Possession or trade of wildlife products (Sections 39–51)
Violation of protected area rules (Sections 26–36)
Smuggling and illegal trade of endangered species (Sections 50–51)
Penalties:
Imprisonment
Fines
Confiscation of animals or products
Judicial Interpretation and Key Case Laws
1. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (Supreme Court, 1983)
Facts:
Kashi Ram was charged with hunting a tiger in Rajasthan, a Schedule I species under the WPA.
Court’s Interpretation:
Supreme Court held that hunting of Schedule I species is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Mens rea (intent to hunt) is required, but even unintentional killing due to gross negligence may attract liability.
The court emphasized the absolute protection given to endangered species.
Principle:
Schedule I animals receive the highest protection; offences attract severe penalties.
Importance:
Strengthened deterrence against poaching of highly protected species.
2. Bombay Environmental Action Group v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
Case involved illegal trade of wildlife products, including ivory and tiger skins, being smuggled abroad.
Court’s Interpretation:
The Supreme Court interpreted Sections 39–51, highlighting that possession, sale, transport, and export of wildlife products are offences even without actual killing by the offender.
Strict liability applies; the offender cannot claim ignorance of the law.
Principle:
Commercial exploitation of wildlife is criminalized, and culpability is broad.
Importance:
Clarifies liability for traders and middlemen in wildlife crime.
3. Union of India v. Sankalchand H. (1991)
Facts:
Illegal trade in rare plants and orchids from protected areas was reported.
Court’s Interpretation:
Court expanded the definition of “wildlife” to include rare flora.
Emphasized that protected areas like national parks and sanctuaries have zero tolerance for collection or trade.
Principle:
WPA protection is not limited to animals; flora of endangered species is equally protected.
Importance:
Ensures comprehensive protection covering both fauna and flora.
4. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996–ongoing)
Facts:
Public Interest Litigation regarding deforestation and habitat destruction affecting endangered wildlife.
Court’s Interpretation:
Supreme Court issued wide-ranging directions to protect forests, sanctuaries, and wildlife corridors.
Reinforced that habitat destruction is an indirect offence under WPA, as it endangers species.
Introduced the “Precautionary Principle” in environmental law to prevent wildlife offences.
Principle:
Legal responsibility includes preventing environmental degradation, not only direct hunting/trade.
Importance:
Landmark case linking wildlife offences with broader ecological conservation.
5. Ajay Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2003)
Facts:
Accused caught with parts of endangered species (snake skins and bird feathers) for sale.
Court’s Interpretation:
Court held that mere possession for commercial purposes, without hunting, constitutes an offence.
Penalties under Sections 51 and 55 were strictly upheld.
Principle:
Strict liability applies for trade in wildlife products.
Importance:
Strengthened legal stance against illegal wildlife trade networks.
6. C. Ganapathi v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, 2005)
Facts:
Illegal poaching of elephants for ivory.
Court’s Interpretation:
Court recognized poaching as a crime against society, not just wildlife.
Imprisonment and fine must be deterrent enough to discourage organized poaching.
Courts also emphasized confiscation of assets used in wildlife crime.
Principle:
Courts treat wildlife crime as a serious offence affecting ecological balance.
Importance:
Encouraged stricter enforcement and deterrence against elephant poaching.
7. Wildlife Trust of India v. Union of India (2010)
Facts:
Case involved illegal mining and its impact on tiger reserves.
Court’s Interpretation:
Supreme Court clarified that habitat destruction that threatens Schedule I species is an offence under WPA.
Court directed strict monitoring of industrial activities in protected areas.
Principle:
Environmental degradation leading to endangerment is legally actionable.
Importance:
Integrates industrial regulation with wildlife protection.
Key Judicial Principles from Wildlife Protection Cases
| Principle | Case(s) | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Absolute protection for Schedule I species | Kashi Ram | Hunting of these species is severely punished |
| Strict liability for trade | Bombay Environmental Action Group, Ajay Kumar | Commercial exploitation is punishable even without hunting |
| Protection of flora | Sankalchand H. | Rare plants are covered under WPA |
| Indirect offences (habitat destruction) | Godavarman Thirumulpad, Wildlife Trust of India | Destruction of habitat is actionable |
| Confiscation and deterrent penalties | C. Ganapathi | Offenders’ tools/assets can be seized; penalties must deter organized crime |
Conclusion
Judicial interpretations under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 show that Indian courts:
Apply strict liability for poaching and trade offences
Extend protection to flora, fauna, and habitats
Recognize wildlife offences as serious crimes affecting ecology and society
Ensure deterrence through heavy fines, imprisonment, and confiscation
RELATED Blog
comments