Fishing And Wildlife Offences
Fishing and wildlife offences refer to illegal activities involving wild animals, aquatic species, forest produce, or the destruction of protected ecosystems. These include:
Hunting or poaching protected species
Illegal fishing in regulated zones
Use of banned gear (explosives, poisons, dynamite, electric rods)
Trade in wildlife trophies or meat
Transport of protected species
Destruction of habitats, nesting sites, or breeding areas
Fishing in marine protected areas or during breeding seasons
Courts generally consider:
Level of environmental harm
Intent of the offender
Commercial scale of activity
Protection status of the species
Past offences
1. Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010)
Facts:
Sansar Chand was a notorious poacher involved in trafficking tiger skins, leopard skins, and wildlife trophies. He financed poaching networks that led to the killing of numerous tigers in Rajasthan, including in Ranthambore National Park.
Issue:
Whether the Wildlife (Protection) Act requires strict punishment for organized wildlife crime.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
Wildlife crimes are a serious threat to biodiversity and national heritage.
Offenders involved in organized poaching create long-term ecological damage.
Maximum punishment under Sections 51 and 9 of the Wildlife Act must be imposed.
Impact / Principle:
Courts take a strong stance against organized wildlife trafficking.
Offenses against endangered species warrant strict liability and harsher sentences.
2. State of Kerala v. P. V. Mathew (2012)
Facts:
Accused caught possessing ivory and transporting it for commercial gain. Elephant tusks were removed after illegal killing of wild elephants.
Issue:
Whether possession and transport alone, without direct proof of killing, constitute a wildlife offence.
Judgment:
The court held:
Possession and transport of wildlife trophies of protected species is itself an offense.
Under Section 39(1)(d), ivory is government property; illegal possession is punishable.
Impact:
Courts treat illegal wildlife trade as a standalone offense, even without proof of the original poaching act.
3. Chief Wildlife Warden v. Mohanlal (1996)
Facts:
Accused involved in selling leopard skins and tiger claws. The issue was whether seized trophies must be released back to the owner if the prosecution fails.
Issue:
Whether wildlife trophies can be returned to the accused after acquittal.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
Wildlife trophies cannot be returned even upon acquittal.
Wildlife property always belongs to the State.
The purpose of the Act is conservation, not property rights.
Principle:
The Wildlife Act interprets wildlife and trophies as public trust resources, not private property.
4. State of Karnataka v. Narayanappa (1985)
Facts:
Accused used explosives for fishing (blast fishing) in a river, causing death of hundreds of fish and damaging aquatic ecosystems.
Issue:
Whether using explosives for fishing falls under wildlife and environmental offenses.
Judgment:
Court held:
Explosive fishing is a criminal offence under:
Indian Fisheries Act, 1897
IPC Section 429 (mischief against animals)
The intent or scale of damage does not matter; the act itself endangers biodiversity.
Impact:
Courts consider damage to aquatic ecology equal in seriousness to wildlife killing on land.
5. Centre for Environmental Law v. Union of India (2013) – The Asiatic Lion Case
Facts:
Issue regarding translocation of Asiatic lions from Gir (Gujarat) to Kuno (Madhya Pradesh). Wildlife NGOs argued for ecosystem protection and species safety.
Issue:
Whether wildlife conservation decisions should consider ecosystem integrity and scientific research.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held:
Wildlife protection is a constitutional duty under Article 48A and 51A(g).
Courts can intervene when state decisions harm wildlife conservation.
Ordered translocation for species safety and biodiversity balance.
Principle:
Courts adopt eco-centric approaches—ecosystems, not humans, are the primary concern.
6. State v. Ghulam Rasool (2009) – Kashmir Trout Poaching Case
Facts:
Accused used electric rods to illegally capture trout in Kashmir’s protected fishing zones.
Issue:
Is illegal fishing with prohibited gear a serious ecological offence?
Judgment:
Court held:
Electric fishing destroys not just fish but their breeding environment.
Conviction under Fisheries Act and higher fines imposed.
Impact:
Use of prohibited gear (electricity, dynamite, poison) is treated as an aggravated fishing offence.
7. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mohan Singh (2001)
Facts:
Accused caught hunting musk deer, a highly endangered species, within a protected forest area.
Issue:
Whether night hunting and carrying weapons in protected areas automatically constitute a wildlife crime.
Judgment:
Court held:
Presence with weapons in a protected forest implies presumption of hunting intent.
Offenses under Sections 27, 29, 32 of the Wildlife Act established.
Principle:
Courts allow reverse burden (presumption of guilt) in wildlife crimes because evidence of actual killing is often hidden.
8. Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India (1991) – Sariska Tiger Reserve Case
Facts:
Mass poaching led to disappearance of tigers from Sariska. Environmental NGOs sought judicial intervention.
Issue:
Can courts mandate enforcement of wildlife protection measures?
Judgment:
Supreme Court:
Directed strict protection and anti-poaching measures.
Ordered compliance reports and regular monitoring.
Impact:
Judicial activism strengthened wildlife conservation.
Courts recognized wildlife protection as a public trust doctrine obligation.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
1. Strict Liability for Wildlife Crime
Even without direct evidence (e.g., killing), possession, transport, or presence in protected zones results in liability.
2. Wildlife as Government Property
Trophies, skins, tusks, etc., cannot be returned even if the accused is acquitted.
3. Environmental Harm = Criminal Offence
Illegal fishing, dynamite use, killing endangered species are treated as ecological crimes.
4. Ecosystem-Based Interpretation
Courts prioritize biodiversity and ecological balance over individual or commercial interests.
5. Conservation as a Constitutional Duty
Article 48A (State obligation) and 51A(g) (citizen duty) guide judicial interpretation.
6. Reverse Burden of Proof
Courts presume illegal intent when a person is found with weapons, traps, snares, or prohibited gear inside sanctuaries.
Summary Table of All Cases
| Case | Offence Type | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Sansar Chand | Large-scale poaching | Strict penalties for organized wildlife crime |
| P.V. Mathew | Ivory possession | Possession of trophies = offence |
| Mohanlal | Wildlife trophies | Wildlife belongs to the State |
| Narayanappa | Explosive fishing | Damage to aquatic ecology is a serious offence |
| Asiatic Lion Case | Wildlife relocation | Eco-centric conservation |
| Ghulam Rasool | Electric fishing | Prohibited gear = aggravated offence |
| Mohan Singh | Musk deer hunting | Presumption of hunting intent |
| Sariska Case | Tiger poaching crisis | Judicial duty to enforce conservation laws |
RELATED Blog
comments