Poaching And Wildlife Protection Laws
๐ฆ I. Overview of Wildlife Protection Laws in India
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is the cornerstone of wildlife conservation law in India. It was enacted to curb illegal hunting (poaching), protect endangered species, and conserve natural habitats.
โณ Key Provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972:
Section 9: Prohibits hunting of wild animals listed in Schedule I to IV.
Section 49B & 51: Prohibit trade in wild animals and lay down penalties for poaching or illegal trafficking.
Schedule I & II: Contain species with the highest level of protection.
Section 50: Powers of search, seizure, and arrest by wildlife officers.
Other related laws include:
Forest Conservation Act, 1980
Environment Protection Act, 1986
Indian Penal Code (IPC) โ for handling organized poaching as criminal conspiracies or gang offences.
๐งโโ๏ธ II. Landmark Case Laws on Poaching and Wildlife Protection
1. Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010)
Court: Supreme Court of India
๐ฆ Facts:
Sansar Chand was a notorious wildlife trader involved in large-scale poaching, especially of tigers and leopards, and trafficking their body parts.
โ Issues:
Whether the repeated involvement in wildlife crimes constituted a grave threat to ecological security.
Could bail be denied due to the seriousness of the offence?
๐งพ Judgment:
The Supreme Court described wildlife crime as more dangerous than terrorism in some aspects because it destroys national heritage irreversibly.
Bail was denied.
The Court emphasized ecological security as part of national security.
โ Significance:
Landmark judgment prioritizing wildlife crimes as national threats.
Recognized organized poaching as non-bailable and non-compoundable due to its severity.
2. Centre for Environmental Law, WWF v. Union of India (2013)
Court: Supreme Court
๐ Facts:
Concerns were raised over the poor state of elephant corridors and rampant poaching despite protections.
โ Issues:
Should the National Board for Wildlife and the State Boards for Wildlife be held accountable for poor implementation?
๐งพ Judgment:
The Supreme Court emphasized the role of State and Central authorities in ensuring protection.
Directed identification and legal recognition of critical wildlife habitats and corridors.
โ Significance:
Strengthened state accountability in enforcing anti-poaching laws.
Made the Wildlife Board decisions judicially enforceable.
3. State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan (2000)
Court: Karnataka High Court
๐ Facts:
Krishnan was caught with tiger skins and other wildlife trophies without legal permits.
โ Issues:
Could trophies be considered as evidence of hunting under Section 9?
๐งพ Judgment:
The court held possession of such trophies without permits constituted sufficient evidence of poaching.
Conviction upheld under the Wildlife Protection Act.
โ Significance:
Expanded the scope of enforcement by recognizing possession as proof of hunting, reversing burden of proof.
4. State v. Ram Pratap (2001)
Court: Rajasthan High Court
๐ Facts:
Accused was found transporting leopard skins in a vehicle.
โ Issues:
Whether failure to produce transit permits proved illegal possession?
๐งพ Judgment:
Court held that under Section 57 of the Act, burden lies on the accused to prove lawful possession.
Mere possession without permit inferred illegal hunting or trading.
โ Significance:
Applied reverse burden of proof, strengthening enforcement against poachers.
5. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014)
Court: Supreme Court of India
๐ Facts:
Concerned the practice of Jallikattu and mistreatment of bulls.
โ Issues:
Did the use of animals in public spectacles violate protection laws?
How does animal welfare relate to wildlife protection?
๐งพ Judgment:
Court ruled that animals have a right to dignity and protection under the Constitution and Wildlife Act.
Recognized animals as sentient beings, extending moral and legal rights to them.
โ Significance:
Set the foundation for legal personhood of animals in future cases.
Broadened the interpretation of wildlife protection to include ethical treatment.
6. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Ongoing since 1995)
Court: Supreme Court of India
๐ Facts:
A continuing series of petitions regarding forest and wildlife conservation.
โ Issues:
How to ensure judicial monitoring of protected areas?
How to stop poaching in tiger reserves and elephant corridors?
๐งพ Judgment:
The Court set up the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
Directed the states to monitor poaching, maintain buffer zones, and prosecute organized wildlife criminals.
โ Significance:
Judicial activism led to enhanced monitoring of poaching.
Recognized that wildlife conservation is linked to ecological balance and fundamental rights under Article 21.
๐ฟ III. Key Judicial Doctrines Developed
Ecological Security = National Security โ Sansar Chand
Reverse Burden of Proof in Wildlife Crimes โ Ram Pratap, Krishnan
Animal Rights as Constitutional Rights โ A. Nagaraja
Ongoing Judicial Monitoring โ T.N. Godavarman cases
Accountability of Wildlife Boards โ WWF case
๐ง Conclusion
Poaching is treated as a serious crime, akin to organized crime or terrorism due to its long-term ecological consequences. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, supplemented by strong judicial interpretation, ensures:
Severe penalties,
Reverse burden of proof,
Ban on trade and transport of wildlife articles,
Accountability of enforcement agencies.
The courts in India have progressively expanded the scope of wildlife protection to include not just species conservation, but also animal rights, ecological balance, and constitutional duty of the state under Article 48A (Protection of Environment).
RELATED Blog
0 comments