Wildlife Crimes Under Bns And Wpa
1. Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA) — Overview
The WPA is the primary legislation in India to protect wild animals, birds, and plants.
It prohibits hunting, poaching, and illegal trade of wild flora and fauna.
It categorizes species into schedules with varying degrees of protection.
It also regulates the establishment of protected areas like sanctuaries, national parks, and biosphere reserves.
2. Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (BDA) — Overview
This Act aims to conserve biological diversity, regulate access to biological resources, and ensure fair sharing of benefits arising from their use.
It provides for the establishment of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) and State Biodiversity Boards.
Detailed Explanation of Wildlife Crimes and Relevant Case Laws
Case 1: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India (1997) - Forest Conservation and Wildlife Protection
Facts:
This is one of the most landmark environmental cases in India. The petitioner challenged the indiscriminate felling of trees and encroachments in forest areas, which indirectly affected wildlife habitats.
Legal Principle:
The Supreme Court interpreted the WPA and Forest Conservation Act to enhance protection for forest and wildlife. It held that protection of forests is essential to conserve wildlife and that forest diversion must be strictly regulated.
Outcome:
The Court issued strict guidelines to control forest diversion, illegal logging, and protection of wildlife habitats. It led to the establishment of monitoring committees ensuring enforcement of the WPA.
Case 2: N D Jayal vs Union of India (2012) - Tiger Poaching
Facts:
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation regarding rampant tiger poaching in national parks like Bandhavgarh and Pench.
Legal Principle:
The Court emphasized the strict enforcement of Section 9 and 51 of the WPA, which prohibit hunting and trade of scheduled animals like tigers. The Court held that poaching of tigers is a serious offense punishable with imprisonment and fines.
Outcome:
The Court directed the government to strengthen anti-poaching measures, provide adequate manpower, and improve forest guards’ training.
Case 3: M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) — Indirect Impact on Wildlife
Facts:
Although primarily an industrial pollution case, the Court recognized how chemical pollution severely impacts wildlife habitats around industrial zones.
Legal Principle:
The Court invoked the WPA to argue that wildlife has an inherent right to live in a pollution-free environment. It linked environmental pollution laws with wildlife protection, emphasizing integrated enforcement.
Outcome:
This expanded the interpretation of the WPA to include indirect threats to wildlife, like pollution, leading to stricter regulation of hazardous industries near forests.
Case 4: Taj Mahal vs Union of India (Air Pollution affecting Wildlife Sanctuaries) (1996)
Facts:
Air pollution from nearby industries was affecting the flora and fauna in wildlife sanctuaries near the Taj Mahal.
Legal Principle:
The Court ruled that WPA protections extend to habitats, not just individual animals. The environment surrounding protected species and areas must be preserved to prevent extinction.
Outcome:
The Court ordered stricter pollution control around wildlife sanctuaries and emphasized habitat conservation under the WPA.
Case 5: Ajay D. Desai vs Union of India (Illegal Trade of Endangered Species) (2010)
Facts:
The case involved illegal trading of exotic and endangered species across state lines, violating Sections 39 and 40 of the WPA.
Legal Principle:
The Court stressed that the interstate trade of wildlife requires strict licensing and compliance with WPA provisions. It reiterated that unauthorized trade amounts to serious criminal offense, attracting heavy penalties.
Outcome:
It led to enhanced monitoring by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), stricter border controls, and crackdowns on wildlife traffickers.
Summary of Key Wildlife Crimes under WPA and BDA
| Crime | Relevant Sections | Explanation | Punishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hunting/Poaching of Scheduled Animals | Sections 9, 51 | Prohibited killing, hunting, or capturing of protected species | Imprisonment up to 7 years, fines |
| Illegal Trade of Wildlife or Derivatives | Sections 39, 40 | Trade, possession, or sale of wildlife or products without authorization | Imprisonment, fines |
| Damage or Destruction of Wildlife Habitat | Implied under WPA and Forest Conservation Act | Harm to protected areas or habitats impacting wildlife | Varies, with preventive orders |
| Unauthorized Access to Biological Resources | BDA Sections 3, 4 | Access or commercial use without approval from Biodiversity Boards | Penalties, fines, imprisonment |
RELATED Blog
0 comments