Wildlife Offences And Criminal Law
I. Introduction
Wildlife offences in India primarily fall under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (“WLPA”), along with other relevant laws such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Environment Protection Act. The WLPA was enacted to provide legal protection to wild animals, birds, and plants and to regulate hunting, trade, and possession of wildlife and their products.
II. Nature of Wildlife Offences
Wildlife offences can broadly be classified as:
| Type of Offence | Description |
|---|---|
| Hunting | Killing or capturing protected animals without permission (Sec 9, WLPA) |
| Poaching | Illegal hunting, often involving endangered species |
| Possession/Trade of Wildlife | Illegal possession, trade, or export of animals, trophies, skins, etc. (Sec 39, 40 WLPA) |
| Destruction of Habitat | Damaging or destroying protected forests/habitats |
| Illegal Transport | Moving wildlife or their derivatives without authorization |
| Violation of CITES | Violation of international trade norms for endangered species |
III. Penalties and Enforcement under the Wildlife Protection Act
Punishment: Fine, imprisonment (up to 7 years), or both.
Cognizable and Non-Bailable Offences: Most offences are cognizable and non-bailable.
Special Courts: Designated courts handle wildlife cases to expedite justice.
IV. Important Case Laws on Wildlife Offences
1. Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (1996) AIR 2364 (Supreme Court)
Issue: Protection of endangered species and stricter enforcement of WLPA.
Held: Supreme Court emphasized strict interpretation of WLPA and ordered authorities to take effective steps to stop poaching and illegal trade.
Significance: Strengthened enforcement mechanisms and called for public awareness in wildlife protection.
2. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267
Issue: Illegal logging and habitat destruction in forests affecting wildlife.
Held: Supreme Court issued broad directions to protect forests and wildlife habitats. It expanded the scope of environmental protection under WLPA.
Significance: Landmark judgment reinforcing habitat conservation as integral to wildlife protection.
3. Krishna Ramachandra Kunte v. Union of India (2004) 11 SCC 239
Issue: Offence of smuggling ivory and elephant tusks.
Held: The Court held that stringent punishment must be imposed for such offences, stressing the need to deter wildlife trafficking.
Significance: Set precedent for strict punitive measures against wildlife trafficking.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) AIR 1086 (Oleum Gas Leak Case, but also referencing wildlife issues)
Issue: Broadened the interpretation of “public trust doctrine” relating to environment and wildlife.
Held: State has duty to protect wildlife as part of environmental protection; failure to do so attracts liability.
Significance: Laid down principle that wildlife is a public resource protected by law.
5. Rajendra Singh Rathore v. Union of India (2001) 6 SCC 254
Issue: Question of jurisdiction and powers of forest officers in wildlife offences.
Held: Forest officers have powers akin to police for investigation and prosecution of offences under WLPA.
Significance: Affirmed the legal authority and powers of forest officials in combating wildlife crimes.
6. S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87
Issue: Conservation of wetlands and their role as wildlife habitats.
Held: Supreme Court recognized the ecological importance of wetlands for wildlife and ordered protective measures.
Significance: Extended wildlife protection to ecological habitats, broadening the scope of wildlife offences.
7. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1
Issue: Illegal trade in medicinal plants and forest produce.
Held: Court upheld prosecution under WLPA and environmental laws, recognizing flora protection as part of wildlife conservation.
Significance: Reaffirmed comprehensive protection of flora and fauna.
V. Application of IPC and Other Laws in Wildlife Offences
IPC Sections:
Section 379 (Theft) for stealing wildlife property,
Section 429 (Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, animals, etc.),
Sections 120B and 34 for conspiracy and common intention in poaching/trade.
Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980 also supplement wildlife protection.
VI. Challenges in Enforcement
Lack of trained personnel.
Corruption and collusion with poachers.
Difficulty in tracking illegal wildlife trade networks.
Insufficient public awareness and cooperation.
VII. Conclusion
Wildlife offences in India are taken seriously by law, with a strong legal framework under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, supported by the IPC and environmental statutes. Indian courts have played a crucial role in interpreting laws strictly, expanding the scope to include habitat protection, and reinforcing the powers of forest and enforcement officers to tackle poaching and trafficking effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments