Wildlife Smuggling And Poaching Laws
🐘 1. Overview of Laws on Wildlife Smuggling and Poaching
In India, the primary legislation addressing poaching and wildlife smuggling is:
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Purpose: Protect wild animals, birds, and plants.
Key Provisions:
Section 9: Prohibits hunting of wild animals listed in Schedules I to IV.
Section 39: Declares all wild animals government property; smuggling is illegal.
Section 49B: Regulates possession, purchase, and sale of animal articles.
Section 51: Prescribes penalties for offenses — up to 7 years' imprisonment and fines.
Other laws:
Customs Act, 1962: Governs illegal import/export of endangered species.
Environment Protection Act, 1986
Indian Penal Code (IPC): Can apply in conspiracy, abetment, etc.
⚖️ 2. Detailed Case Law on Wildlife Smuggling and Poaching
🔹 Case 1: Sansar Chand v. State (2004)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Sansar Chand was a notorious wildlife trafficker involved in the smuggling of skins of tigers, leopards, and other protected animals. He had a network of poachers in various states and supplied skins internationally.
Legal Issues:
Charged under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Involvement in organized wildlife crime.
Court’s Observation:
The court emphasized the gravity of wildlife crimes.
Declared that wildlife trafficking was as serious as drug trafficking and terrorism.
Criticized the weak enforcement mechanisms.
Outcome:
He was convicted under the Wildlife Protection Act and sentenced.
Later, his arrest and trial triggered national awareness about organized wildlife crime networks.
🔹 Case 2: State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand (2002)
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Facts: Fateh Chand was caught in possession of a large number of blackbuck skins and bones. He was part of a poaching syndicate.
Legal Issues:
Violation of Section 9 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act.
Court’s Judgment:
Convicted the accused for poaching and possession of protected animal articles.
The court reiterated that blackbucks are Schedule I animals and thus require strict protection.
Significance:
Reinforced the importance of stringent punishment for wildlife crimes.
Highlighted the need for better coordination between forest officials and police.
🔹 Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Salman Khan (Blackbuck Case)
Court: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur; later appealed in Sessions Court and Rajasthan High Court
Facts: Actor Salman Khan and others were accused of hunting two blackbucks in 1998 during the shooting of a film near Jodhpur.
Legal Provisions:
Section 9 (prohibition of hunting) and Section 51 (penalty) of the Wildlife Protection Act.
Court Proceedings:
The case went through multiple appeals and revisions over two decades.
He was convicted in 2018 and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
Later granted bail and the matter is pending in higher courts.
Significance:
Drew national attention to celebrity involvement in wildlife crimes.
Sparked debates over the judicial system’s speed and efficiency.
🔹 Case 4: Centre for Environmental Law, WWF v. Union of India (Tiger Reintroduction Case)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts: The case stemmed from the complete disappearance of tigers from Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, due to unchecked poaching.
Issue:
Failure of forest and state authorities to prevent poaching.
Demand for reintroduction and protection of tigers.
Court’s Orders:
Directed the government to reintroduce tigers from Ranthambore.
Ordered strengthening of forest protection infrastructure.
Directed regular monitoring of tiger populations.
Significance:
Led to the formation of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA).
Highlighted how poaching, when unchecked, can wipe out entire populations.
🔹 Case 5: State v. Dhirendra Kumar and Others (Red Sand Boa Smuggling, 2019)
Court: Madhya Pradesh Sessions Court
Facts: The accused were caught smuggling the Red Sand Boa snake, a protected species under Schedule IV of the Wildlife Protection Act. These snakes are used in black magic and illegal trade.
Legal Issues:
Smuggling of protected species.
Violation of Section 39 and 51 of the Act.
Outcome:
Accused were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment.
The court condemned the use of animals for superstitious practices.
Importance:
Reinforced that even lesser-known species under Schedule IV deserve protection.
Highlighted the link between superstition and wildlife trade.
🔹 Case 6: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Ongoing Series since 1995)
Court: Supreme Court
Facts: This is a continuing mandamus case concerning forest and wildlife protection in India.
Wildlife-Related Orders:
Bans on transport of illegally felled timber and wildlife products.
Orders to protect national parks and sanctuaries.
Monitoring of poaching activities and conservation efforts.
Impact:
Huge improvement in forest governance.
The case has led to wide-reaching policy and administrative changes.
⚖️ 3. Legal Provisions Applied in These Cases
| Section | Act | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Sec 9 | Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 | Prohibits hunting of Schedule I-IV animals |
| Sec 39 | Wildlife Protection Act | Declares wild animals as government property |
| Sec 49B | Wildlife Protection Act | Restriction on animal article trade |
| Sec 51 | Wildlife Protection Act | Penalty: 3-7 years + fines |
| IPC 120B | Indian Penal Code | Criminal conspiracy |
| IPC 379 | IPC | Theft (used in illegal possession cases) |
🧾 Conclusion
Wildlife smuggling and poaching are not just conservation issues — they are criminal acts with severe implications for biodiversity, law enforcement, and international cooperation. The landmark cases discussed demonstrate how courts in India have taken a progressively stricter view against wildlife crimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments