Wildlife Crimes As Organized Crime
1. What Are Wildlife Crimes?
Wildlife crimes refer to illegal acts involving wild animals and plants, such as:
Poaching of endangered species (like tigers, leopards, elephants, pangolins, etc.)
Illegal trade in animal parts (skins, tusks, bones, etc.)
Smuggling of protected flora and fauna
Hunting in protected areas
Capturing, killing, or trafficking of animals without legal authorization
2. Why Consider Wildlife Crime as Organized Crime?
Wildlife crimes are no longer seen as isolated incidents. Many such offences are:
Conducted by well-structured syndicates
Involve cross-border smuggling and trafficking
Use sophisticated networks, money laundering, and corrupt practices
Linked with terror financing and international crime rings
This has prompted Indian authorities to treat wildlife crimes as organized crime, invoking stringent laws and investigative tools traditionally used for major crimes.
3. Legal Framework
| Law | Provisions |
|---|---|
| Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 | Main law dealing with protection of wild animals, plants, and habitats. |
| Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 | Used when wildlife crimes involve financial gains and laundering. |
| Organized Crime Laws (e.g., MCOCA) | Invoked in some states to deal with wildlife crime syndicates. |
| Customs Act & IPC | Used when wildlife articles are smuggled or when offences involve organized rackets. |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) | In some cases, applied for organized and violent elements of wildlife crime. |
⚖️ Important Case Laws – Wildlife Crimes as Organized Crime
1. Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) SC
Facts: Sansar Chand was a notorious wildlife criminal involved in large-scale poaching of tigers, leopards, and smuggling of animal parts across India.
Held: Supreme Court condemned the role of organized wildlife criminals and acknowledged that such crimes had a "devastating impact on national heritage."
Significance: First time that the organized nature of wildlife crimes was openly recognized at the apex court level. The case triggered reform in wildlife enforcement mechanisms.
2. Wildlife Crime Control Bureau v. Lodu Sikaka (2020), Odisha HC
Facts: Accused was part of a syndicate dealing in pangolin scales, with international links traced to China and Southeast Asia.
Held: Odisha High Court denied bail and emphasized that the syndicate had organized crime features, including layered networks, handlers, and cross-border payments.
Significance: Reinforced the notion that trafficking of species like pangolins is part of international organized crime.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Kishor Waghe (2017), Nagpur Sessions Court
Facts: Involved seizure of large quantities of tiger skin and bones from an organized group operating across Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.
Held: MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act) was invoked against the accused as it was proven they were repeatedly involved in wildlife crime as a syndicate.
Significance: One of the few cases where organized crime laws were successfully applied to wildlife offences.
4. State v. Rajender Kumar (2019), Delhi Court
Facts: Accused was involved in smuggling star tortoises and other protected species using courier and air cargo services.
Held: The court observed the structured modus operandi, use of fake documents, and international buyers, concluding that it was a part of organized wildlife trafficking.
Significance: Highlighted misuse of logistics networks and required collaboration with customs and international agencies.
5. Wildlife Crime Control Bureau v. Unnamed Syndicate (Elephant Ivory Case), Kerala (2021)
Facts: A network smuggling elephant tusks from Kerala to North India and beyond was busted.
Held: The Kerala High Court directed the use of forensic wildlife science and digital surveillance to trace kingpins, stating that wildlife crime is not merely a poaching issue, but a national organized criminal activity.
Significance: Promoted the multi-agency approach to tackle organized wildlife crime.
6. State v. Yakub Khan & Ors. (Leopard Skin Syndicate Case, 2016), Uttarakhand
Facts: Involved seizure of multiple leopard skins being transported for sale to international buyers.
Held: Court held that the repeated involvement, multiple persons, and transboundary movement justified treating the matter as an organized smuggling operation, not just isolated poaching.
Significance: Demonstrated judicial sensitivity toward wildlife trafficking networks.
🔍 Key Characteristics of Wildlife Crimes as Organized Crime
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Networked operations | Multiple actors: poachers, traders, transporters, exporters. |
| International Links | Cross-border demand (e.g., China, Southeast Asia, Africa). |
| Use of Technology | Drones, GPS, encrypted communication for tracking and evasion. |
| Laundering of Proceeds | Conversion of illegal gains into legal assets. |
| Repeat Offenders | Many syndicates involve habitual wildlife criminals. |
📌 Institutional Response
Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB): Central agency coordinating enforcement.
Customs & Enforcement Directorate: Monitor illegal export of wildlife products.
Interpol-Wildlife Crime Working Group: Supports transnational cases.
Forest Departments & Local Police: Ground-level enforcement.
🏁 Final Thoughts
Wildlife crime is no longer about survival-based poaching—it's an organized, transnational criminal enterprise.
Indian courts are increasingly recognizing the systemic, organized nature of these offences.
Prosecutions have started invoking stringent provisions beyond wildlife laws—such as anti-organized crime statutes and money laundering laws.
Strong judicial precedents exist to support a zero-tolerance approach.
RELATED Blog
0 comments