Wildlife Crime Enforcement
Wildlife Crime Enforcement in India: Overview
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: The principal legislation to safeguard wildlife and their habitats.
Sections: Key provisions include:
Prohibition of hunting and trade of wild animals (Sections 9, 39, 43).
Penalties for contravention, including fines and imprisonment (Sections 51, 52).
Powers to seize, investigate, and prosecute offenders.
Role of Enforcement Agencies: Forest Department, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), and the police play a vital role.
Judicial Role: Courts have interpreted the Act liberally to deter offenders and protect endangered species.
Important Case Laws on Wildlife Crime Enforcement:
1. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (1979) AIR 1980 SC 319
Facts: The accused was charged with hunting a protected species (Blackbuck).
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the need for strict enforcement of the WPA.
Principle: Hunting of protected species is a serious offence that threatens biodiversity, and courts should not be lenient.
Significance: This case set the tone for strict judicial scrutiny in wildlife crime cases.
2. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 353
Facts: Public Interest Litigation filed concerning deforestation and protection of forests and wildlife habitats.
Held: Supreme Court took a proactive role, issuing directives for forest conservation and enforcement of wildlife protection laws.
Impact: Established the Court’s role in environmental jurisprudence, leading to stronger enforcement mechanisms.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of habitat protection as essential for wildlife conservation.
3. Centre for Environmental Law, WWF India v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 213
Facts: The case dealt with illegal timber and wildlife trade.
Held: Supreme Court emphasized the need for stringent enforcement and penalties under the WPA.
Judicial Direction: Directed creation of Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) to improve enforcement and intelligence sharing.
Significance: Highlighted the inadequacy of enforcement and pushed for institutional strengthening.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, (2015)
Facts: The case related to illegal smuggling of ivory and tiger parts.
Held: The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of strict enforcement and the role of WCCB in investigation.
Outcome: Confirmed that violations should attract harsh penalties to deter poaching and trafficking.
Significance: Reaffirmed the zero-tolerance policy toward wildlife crime.
5. The Bombay High Court in the case of Wildlife Protection Society of India v. Union of India (2013)
Facts: The case challenged illegal mining and deforestation in ecologically sensitive zones affecting wildlife.
Held: The Court banned mining operations in such areas and ordered restoration of damaged habitats.
Significance: Emphasized habitat protection as integral to wildlife enforcement.
Enforcement Impact: Strengthened regulatory oversight to prevent habitat destruction, a major factor in wildlife crime.
Additional Key Points on Enforcement:
Strict Liability: Wildlife offences often attract strict liability, meaning mens rea (intent) may not always be required for conviction.
Confiscation & Forfeiture: Courts have ordered confiscation of vehicles, weapons, and equipment used in poaching.
Preventive Actions: Courts have urged forest departments to enhance patrolling and community participation.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Has been an important tool for wildlife protection, with courts issuing guidelines and monitoring enforcement.
Summary:
Indian courts have consistently upheld the strict enforcement of the Wildlife Protection Act and related laws.
They have emphasized the need for harsh penalties, institutional reforms like the establishment of WCCB, and protection of wildlife habitats.
The judiciary plays a proactive role in balancing developmental pressures with conservation needs.
Cases reflect a zero tolerance approach toward poaching, trafficking, and habitat destruction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments