Open Access Research Article
THE EVOLUTION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LAWS IN INDIA & THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Published Paper
Article Details
THE EVOLUTION OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION LAWS IN INDIA & THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Abstract
The Indian
judiciary is specifically highlighted in this paper's examination of the
court's role in protecting and conserving wildlife. Commencing with an exploration
of the legislative framework governing wildlife conservation, it routes through
the realm of judicial activism in concentrating issues such as wildlife trafficking,
poaching, and cruelty to animals. The paper examines the efficacy of DNA and forensic
technologies, alongside the invaluable contribution of sniffer dogs in
combatting illegal wildlife trade. It reviews the existing legal provisions for
wildlife protection in India, advocating for potential legislative amendments. With
the help of case studies and jurisprudential analysis, it examines the evolving
concept of animal rights, including the intriguing question of whether animals
can be recognized as juristic persons. Additionally, it talks about the
intersection between humanism and animalism within constitutional patterns.
This paper features India's commitment to international treaties and
conventions for wildlife conservation, while also highlighting the fundamental
role played by specialized tribunals and NGOs. Eventually, we have tried to interpret
the essence of the dynamic and evolving jurisprudence in protecting wildlife and
ecosystems for future generations.
The Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972:
Religious
and cultural practices place an excessive value on animals. The treatment of
animals, particularly including
several endangered species, is far from ideal. The Elephant Preservation Act of
1879 and the Wild Birds Protection
Act of 1887 were one of the first laws in India to safeguard and protect wild
animals. It is well known that guarding wildlife
is crucial to the survival
of humankind as well as all the other species
in the world. Long after the
independence, environmental apprehensions about the flora and fauna came to
light due to the growing loss of animals.3
The Indian Constitution instituted
the division of powers between the central and state governments. Primarily, wildlife
was a state subject, and the Parliament lacked the constitutional authority to
pass laws concerning wildlife unless the legislatures of two or more states
passed a resolution by Article 252, which provided the Parliament the authority
to pass the needed legislation. The Hailey National Park Act, of 1936, which established
the Hailey (now Corbett) National Park in the State of Uttar Pradesh, may have
been the initial comprehensive law for the preservation and protection of
wildlife and its environment.
The majority of the first legislation
was largely designed to protect animals for use in hunting. Restrictions in reserved or protected forests were
introduced in the Indian Forest Act of 1927, which also permitted the establishment of sanctuaries. Legislation
should be enacted to save many endangered species, capture the poachers
who hunt them for their
benefit as well as hunters
who engage in unlawful and futile deaths,
all should face
harsh penalties. The Wildlife Protection Act was most likely passed by India
first.4
"Safeguard
of Wild Birds and Wild
Animals" was ranked No. 20 on the State List by the Constituent Assembly in the Draft Constitution after the independence, and state legislatures were given the authority to enact laws. 5
The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 eventually
shifted it to the Concurrent List. By adding the matters "protection of
wild animals" and "forests" along with "birds" to the
Concurrent List, it has permitted the centre more authority. Several actions have
been taken nationwide through the passing of several Wildlife Acts in identification
of the value of wildlife resources and to stop their decline.
BACKGROUND OF THE WILDLIFE
PROTECTION ACT 1972:
Following the
widespread extinction of wildlife as a result of hunting, the British government
in India implemented reforms to the protection of wildlife. Significant laws
were enacted by the British government, including the Wild Birds and Animals
Protection Act of 1912, the Indian Forest Act of 1878, and the Indian Fisheries
Act of 1897.
·
Only in 1972 was the Wildlife Protection Act, India's
most comprehensive wildlife protection law passed.
·
Following India's independence, the introduction of
long-range weapons and cars accelerated the country's wildlife
loss.
·
The government freely gave farmers
access to firearms
to safeguard crops
from wild animals'
clutches, which led to the widespread eradication of wildlife. Since poachers shot wild animals
without cause or permission between
1947 and 1951,
India's wildlife was severely destroyed
throughout the nation.
The cheetah went extinct in
India in 1951 as a result.
·
In addition, India had just five National Parks before
the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 was passed. Thus, extensive regulation was desperately required to save India's
flora and fauna. 6
The Wild Birds and Animals
Protection Act,1912:
The
Wild Birds Protection Act was passed by the Centre in 1887 and forbade the sale
or ownership of freshly killed or
captured wild birds while they were in the designated nesting season. The
Central Government implemented a more
comprehensive law in 1912. The Wildlife and Wild Birds Protection Act. This
ordinance, which covered
the majority of British India, limited hunting
during certain seasons
and required licences
for the hunting
of certain species.
Indeed, the main purpose of all the laws was to control
hunting, not the commerce in wildlife. 7
The Indian Forest Act, 1878:
The
British colonial government's sneaky purpose was first shown in the Forest Act
of 1865, which served as a model
for the Act of 1878. The state's inadequate authority over the woodlands was
one of its most obvious problems.
Pro-British opponents said that the act's definition of a forest, which is
defined as "land covered with trees,
brushwood, and jungle," made it difficult to build plantations on arid
areas. Seeing the shortcomings in this regulation, a group of forest authorities met in 1874 to discuss
its restrictions. It was determined by the
6
Byju’s (Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Features, (Wildlife Protection Act UPSC)
https://byjusexamprep.com/upsc- exam/wildlife-protection-act-1972
participants that the act had not given the state the authority it needed to manage or preserve forests.
The process of producing
an effective substitute was so discussed.
The updated
Forest Act of 1878 served
as the main tool used by the British government to maintain control
over Indian forests. It
offered a legislative framework that strengthened the state's total ownership
and further disadvantaged rural
residents. By defining forests broadly to cover any land that might be declared
as such, this act redefined what forests
were. It stated that the subcontinent's woods were divided into three groups:
village forests, protected forests, and state or reserved
forests.8
The Indian Fisheries Act, 1897:
Dr. Francis
Day was sent by the Government of India (GOI) to look at freshwater resources in South India, then
across India and Burma. In 1878, two reports were released by Dr. Day of
Madras Medical Service: Freshwater Fish and Fisheries of India &
Burma and Sea Fish and Fisheries of India. Dr. Day served
as the Director General of Fisheries of India in 1864 and as a
Surgeon Major with the British Army in Bengal. Dr. Day pioneered the introduction of legislative measures to
protect the fisheries. The Indian Fisheries Act (Act IV of 1897) was enacted nationwide in India based on this
rationale, outlawing the use of dynamite and poisoning of waterways with the intention of killing fish.
This Act gave the former Provincial Governments the authority
to create regulations governing the following:
(a)
the installation and use of fixed engines; (b) the building of weirs; and (c)
the size, type, and application of nets to be used. It also forbade
any fishing in designated water for a maximum of two years.
A major development in India's fishing history was the introduction of this Act.
Days' efforts also yielded the benefit of duty-free salt for fish curing.9
Landmark cases which have modelled wildlife
Conservation Policies
1.
Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) v. Nisar Khan,
200310
8Ministry of Culture, (The Forest Act of 1878) https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/district-reopsitory-detail.htm?25146
9 Government of Tamil Nadu (Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare)
https://www.fisheries.tn.gov.in/History
The appellant in this case was a bird seller
dealing in birds
that were common
in the state of Uttar Pradesh, such as
buntings, parakeets, mainas, and munias. A state government issues license to
operate his firm was given to him,
and it was all fine until 1990. He applied to the licensing authority for the
renewal of the license for an additional
year, but the license was rejected because he couldn't continue his business of
captive bird breeding without
hunting, which also included bird trapping. Respondent filed a writ case at the
Supreme Court, arguing that this decision
has violated his fundamental right
to trade or commerce, as
guaranteed under Article 19.
The ruling of the
Supreme Court declared:
The
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972's Sections 9 and Section 2(16) forbids breeding
of birds in captivity through the capture
of birds, hence
the licensing body
has appropriately declined
to renew the
license. The appellant's
argument that these actions has violated his basic rights was rejected because
Article 19 forbids him from running any company if it endangers public order
or is determined to be against the law.
2.
Consumer Education
and Research Society, Ahmedabad v. Union of India,
200011
In this particular case,
the Gujarati government, operating under Section 18 of the Act, assigned a portion of the forest area in the Lakhpat Taluka of Kutch as a "wildlife sanctuary" called Narayan Sarovar
Chinkara Sanctuary. The state government then issued a
notification designating 94.87 square kilometers of land as part of the aforesaid reserve forest.
The state administration withdrew the notices
when the petitioner raised objections to them. The state government did the following:
·
The size of the sanctuary
was determined to be larger than
required, and the state government decided to delimit
it. This decision was likely to be favorable in methodically developing
the region economically by utilizing its mineral richness.
·
It inspired the state assembly to approve a suitable
resolution in support of such. In an exercise of its authority under Section
26A(3) of the Act, the state legislature enacted a
resolution reducing the statutory limit.
11 Consumer Education and Research Society,
Ahmedabad v. Union of India, 2000 SCC OnLine SC 407
·
After the
government sent out a
notification to that effect, the petitioner again challenged
it, claiming that there wasn't
enough space to protection the animals.
The High
Court:
·
The petition was rejected by the High Court, which
ruled that the 1200 chinkaras should remain inside
the 444.23 sq. km.
area because the state legislature was aware of the mammals.
It was also preserved
that the region's
economic growth will probably support the local populace as a whole as well
as add to the preservation, development, and conservation of the local flora and wildlife.
The Petitioner challenged the judgement of the High Court
on the following grounds:
·
The state authorities assumed incorrectly that the contested
notification was meant to protect the
local chinkara population.
·
It was released
to save the ecological balance and protect
the ecology.
·
The resolution
was passed by the state
legislature only based on the state
government's judgement, not using its intelligence to
acquire all the pertinent data.
·
It was carried to the legislature's notice that a sizable number of trees on the site that was leased to establish
a cement plant had not been revealed.
The ruling
of the Supreme Court
declared:
·
When the state legislature has formally determined
that the outcome was made after a competent assessment of the facts, it would not be correct to
invalidate their resolution. The statement implied that the state legislature, not the state administration, was liable
for deciding whether to reduce the area. It is deceptive to contest the authority and functions of the state
legislature, which is composed of intellectuals and representatives who are well concerned of the local communities and how to safeguard them.
·
Even though the state legislature acted swiftly and without wisely weighing all the accessible information when passing the
resolution, it would not be sensible to overturn their choice unless there is
considerable evidence to suggest that their choice will damagingly impact the environment and wildlife.
·
According to the court, there are a lot of trees in
the informed area despite it being an edaphic thorn forest. The Forest
Committee has allocated
it as a candidate location
for classification as a biosphere reserve, but it has also noted that the
region is in reverse, and that industrial
development is not possible there.
3.
Naveen Raheja v. Union of India, 200112
Wildlife
enthusiast Naveen Raheja filed a public interest lawsuit in this matter under
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution,
noting the dangers faced by the tigers kept in cages at the Bhubaneswar Zoo and
the horrific incident in which a
tigress was skinned alive at the Nehru Zoological Park in Hyderabad. Worries
about the treatment of animals in
zoos and allocated forests were brought up by him. The Supreme Court was
frightened by the horrific behaviors that the humans engaged in, causing the animals to suffer dreadfully.
The ruling of the
Supreme Court declared:
·
The tiger should
have been shielded
by the zoo's officials, but they were unsuccessful in doing so and the animal was left exposed to abuse while they were kept there.
·
Animal cruelty cannot appear when helpless, voiceless
animals are treated in such a terrible
way. If it is, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, of 1960, will come in
force and there will be
consequences.
·
The state must take the required actions,
as instructed by the court,
to guarantee that such an incident never
happens in any controlled
forests or zoos.
4.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. U.P. State:13
Notable
among public interest litigations is the Doon Valley case. The dispute started
because of excessive mining in the hilly
areas. In one instance, RLEK and a number of residents
petitioned the Supreme
Court to halt
the progressive mining that was destroying trees and the forest cover in
Mussoorie. It was also accelerating soil erosion, which resulted in landslides and groundwater blockages. The Court granted
permission for the valley to be reforested and for all mines to
close.
5.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors, 199614:
This case is involving
several tanneries in the state
of Tamil Nadu, there was a conflict
in the current case. These
tanneries were polluting the Palar River, which was the key supply of
potable water. The establishment of a panel with maximum authority to manage the problem was permitted by the Supreme
Court. To strike a balance
between environmental protection and improvement, the Supreme Court
examined the report before making its ruling. The Court recognized that these Indian
tanneries employ thousands of people and are the main source of foreign
exchange for the nation. All people are in threat of health
problems, and the ecology is destroyed.
Following the court's
verdict in favor of the petitioners, all tanneries were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000
to the collector's office.
In addition, the government of Tamil Nadu was instructed by the court to award
Mr M.C. Mehta with an amount of Rs.
50,000 for his environmental protection efforts. The court in this case also highlights the Green Benches
Constitution of India,
which focuses particularly on issues related
to environmental conservation and expeditious and
effective resolution of environmental disputes.
Wildlife Illegal Trading in India: Case Studies
The
illegal online trade of wildlife parts is developing gradually common. In
Meerut, a suspicious person was recently
caught attempting to sell an albino civet cat to a tourist via a social
networking chat room. The person was caught by undercover police
officers the day when he
went to deliver the cat.
During the investigation, the police were astonished to find price lists
and pictures of various Indian birds, including
sunbirds, peregrine falcons, and peacocks, in the emails conveyed and obtained
by the arrested individual. In
addition, the email history of the suspect exposed that they had internet
banking details for immediate
payments and various shipping procedures for convenient delivery. It was
shocking to see such a effective system in place for illegal trading.
It seems that there is a substantially efficient network of individuals
engaged in this illegal trade. Pet store owners
work with these sellers and traders who with the help of internet reach and
contact their clients. These pet store owners sell exotic animals to traders at excessive prices
and make huge profits out of
it.
Wildlife
trafficking is a worldwide strategy
that contains the illegal trade of various
animals including mammals,
insects, and reptiles. These animals are commonly kept in safe
environments to protect them from any kind of
harm. For example, a King Cobra may be conserved in a vivarium that
closely mimics its natural habitat for study and observation. However,
illegal traders then advance to sell these animals at very high prices.
Wildlife researchers face a major challenge due to the conflicting legal
statuses of wild animals in different countries. For instance, the star tortoise is
protected by the India's Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, but does not have protection in many other countries
where it is without restrictions and lawfully traded. This difference leads to the trafficking of thousands of star tortoises from India each year, which
often results in their death
due to harmful
transportation methods used by traffickers who overlook the animals' welfare.
Once the tortoises reach their
destination, they are usually put in captive-breeding facilities, dishonestly labelled
as "captive-bred," and sold through the illegal wildlife
trade network. The inability to accurately discriminate between animals raised
in captivity and those in the wild makes it easier for offenders
to evade punishment.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) intends to control
the trade of wildlife, but it doesn't safeguard all species. Some countries
permit the lawful sale of a limited number of wild animals each year. This results in creating loopholes
that unlawful traders
can exploit to either legitimize their trade or function
without being detected and stay
hidden.
“Several traders are selling restricted exotic
wildlife in India. There is also a big market out there, especially in the metropolitan cities where buyers
can afford such expensive pets, for many of whom owning an exotic animal or bird becomes a matter of pride
and a status symbol. Earlier, an Alexandrian parakeet (Psittacula euphoria)
or a hill mynah (Gracula
religiosa) were kept as pets, but now we have youngsters who want to keep a snake or a spider
as pets at home – cultural boundaries are also fast vanishing in this age of computers,” said by a veteran
expert on control on wildlife trade in India, Ashok
Kumar, Founder and Director of TRAFFIC India
and the Chairman of Wildlife Trust of India15. Ghost
banking, tax evasion, arms and narcotics trafficking are some of the related crimes of illegal wildlife trade.
The
illegal trade of pets is a major threat as it can spread viruses across the
world. Unfortunately, many safety methods
and provisions are not followed while moving animals, leading to unhygienic
situations. Transport carriers and
holding areas are hardly ever purified, making these animals carriers of
viruses and harmful bacteria.
The illegal animal trade is a worldwide issue that affects nations like Pakistan, Dubai, and Bangladesh. Recently, a trader
in the Kolkata revealed that two pairs of exotic chimpanzees were traded to a
wealthy and influential client in
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The client bought the chimpanzees as an attractive
addition to their farmhouse.
The
illegal animal trade in India focuses the need for observing and lowering
demand. The government, civic authorities,
and citizens must act to keep wildlife in their natural environment and not
treat them as objects for trade and personal benefits.
Birds Illegal Trading in India: Case Studies
A
traveller at Ranchi airport saw a man carrying a purple Munia bird captive in a
cage, along with some other birds
that were involved in illegal activities. These helpless creatures are by force
restrained away from their natural habitats,
leading to the fall of many species
due to their lack of ability to adapt to simulated environments. The United Nations
has emphasized the connection between
illegal poaching and other unauthorized practices in numerous recent
arguments. They proceed
from poached animals
often operate further
illegal trading, rising
in an increasing number
of birds being captured
unlawfully each season.
In the village of Pangti, Nagaland, a red-breasted parakeet was
unlawfully captured from the forest. A few children
were playing around its lock in, ignorant of its painful condition. The
parakeet was in a helpless state after being poached.
Poaching
can take numerous forms, including non-quantifiable and non-commercial
activities such as hunting or trapping birds close to forests or bodies of water.
The northeastern states of India, such as Nagaland, Mizoram, and Manipur,
have lush rainforests. However, there is a substantial lack of bird calls due to threatening catching and hunting. Many wild birds and animals
are hunted for their meat, following in repeated indiscriminate killings. Birds
are also hunt down for the thrill they provide.
The
Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) is speaking about the issue of bird hunting,
specifically in the northeastern
states. In October 2012, many Amur Falcons were slaughtered in Nagaland. A
coalition of NGOs interrupted to
stop this indiscriminate hunting by focusing the cultural acceptance of
hunting. Through several educational and advocacy attempts,
villagers came to acknowledge the significance of complying with the law, directing
to a cessation of hunting in 2013. However, hunting continues a persistent
problem in Manipur and Mizoram. Thoughts with youth groups are ongoing
to promote behavioural change.
There
has been a drop in the population of wild birds in the northeast region,
involving the shooting of exotic birds such as Pheasants and Tragopans with the use of
firearms like muskets, air guns, and rifles.
To
amend this longstanding method, it is crucial to re-evaluate the natural value
of birds. By guarding birds under the
Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and granting them to fulfil their roles within
ecosystems, we can drastically contribute to the diversity, pollination, and productivity of these ecosystems. Furthermore, improving eco-tourism and eco-communication proposals can also
help enhance bird welfare.
Role of
DNA
and Forensics in Curbing
Illegal Wildlife Trading
Over
time, the extreme exploitation of natural resources has led to the
unsustainable and often cruel depletion of
ecosystem services across the global. The commercialization of wildlife has
made it simple to produce income, but it has also
developed a significant increase in dangers to numerous species globally.
However, recognizing the geographical origin
of these products
can help classify
between legal and illegal ones. This,
in turn, can ease the return of captured animals to their indigenous
populations and identify which populations are most heavily
affected.
As per the INTERPOL, the unlawful trade
of plants, animals,
and their derivatives is an increasing underground market estimated
at over $20 billion annually.
This unlawful activity
undermines local, national,
and international security, jeopardizes iconic species,
and reduces global
biodiversity.
Therefore, it is critical
to address the issue of unnecessary exploitation of natural resources
and the commercialization of wildlife products. By recognizing the
geographical origin of these products, we can help safeguard endangered
species and conserve the natural environment for future generations.
A latest study has explained that hunting
for trade and animal collection is the second
most substantial cause of decreasing populations of endangered species. This influences a range of animals, such as mammals,
birds, and amphibians. In India, the unlawful trade
in various species, specifically large carnivores, poses a major threat to the country's biological resources and scares
the balance of the ecosystem.
To undertake this issue, wildlife
managing authorities need efficient techniques to catch offenders. Enforcement of the Wildlife
Protection Act of 1972 is important, and it involves
recognizing unlawfully traded
wildlife parts. This can be accomplished by analysing
attributes such as hair characteristics, specific measurements of long bones, species identification, and
age-specific tooth morphology. These techniques apply to various wildlife products, involving raw or cooked meat, as
well as degraded or processed items like tanned skins, shoes, ties, belts, and
necklaces.
DNA indicator technology is an efficient way to recognize species
from different seizures. The method involves
amplifying the informative segment of the mitochondrial gene and
exposing it to gene sequencing. The NCBI is
a freely available database that can be used to confirm raw sequences and
identify matches. Recovering homologous sequences from NCBI should
be done with cautiousness to minimize the risk of misidentification. Mitochondrial DNA methods are currently the leading method for species
identification. DNA forensics shows promise in
combating wildlife trading, but there is a requirement for improved institutional
instruments for wildlife forensics in India.
The evidentiary value of a sniffer
dog
The
increase in planned unlawful wildlife trade is a major matter. As a part of the
Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce (TRAFFIC)
program, dogs are trained to detect wildlife
articles such as tiger and leopard bones,
skins, and bear bile, among
others.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972
encourages various officials to conduct ground-level investigations, with the power of entry, the search of grounds, vehicles
or vessels, arrest,
and detention in case of suspicion of an
offence under the Act. These
executives include the Director
or authorized officers,
the Chief Wildlife
Warden or other authorized officers,
any forest officer,
or any police officer not beneath the rank of sub-inspector.
It is worth recording
that in issues related to wildlife
crimes, the Wildlife
(Protection) Act of 1972 takes priority over the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which is also applicable.
While the Indian Evidence
Act of 1872 permits for the testimony of numerous experts
such as scientists, doctors, chemical
analysts, bomb experts, engineers, and architects, sniffer dogs are vital in
crime investigations due to their brilliant sense of smell. These dogs are precious
in search and seizure operations, apprehending criminals, and detecting
evidence and missing persons.
In court, there are restrictions to the admissibility of evidence showed
by sniffer dogs. The main reason for this is that they cannot be cross-examined, which
is an essential necessity for court reliability. In India, courts
often consider evidence
showed by sniffer dogs as inconclusive in cases including their use. The
Supreme Court of India has stated
that even if such evidence is permissible, it holds limited weight allowing the
current state of scientific understanding. However, in a separate case, the Bombay High Court recognized the worth of evidence showed by sniffer dogs, highlighting
their impartiality and reliability. The court observed that while evidence in criminal cases should meet high
standards of reliability and infallibility, sniffer dogs offer a unique level
of acceptability due to their
inability to be influenced. Experience has shown that sniffer dogs' abilities
transcend those of other uncovering methods, including highly
developed technology, remarkably in cases involving
drug detection or serious
offences like robbery and murder.
The Bombay High Court has recognized that dogs are smart animals with
highly advanced sensibilities. Some breeds
of dogs are specifically used for hunting and chasing due to their exceptional
capabilities. If a dog falls into one
of these classifications and is shown to have been specifically trained for
detection, its tracking evidence is admissible and must be relied upon as high-quality evidence.
In India, the conviction rate for offences involving wildlife is less
than 3%. This figure includes evidence acquired
through sniffer dogs and the oral evidence of their handlers. The dogs'
training and expertise in identifying various wildlife stuff are also taken into account. Proper documentation and perfect recording
of confiscated items can prove to the court that evidence from sniffer
dogs not only helps investigations but also serves as valuable corroborative evidence. This
evidence could possibly help authorities win the case.
Cases of Cruelty on Wildlife in India
·
Animal welfare states to the overall well-being of animals and their capability to get used to their
environments and conditions. It reflects humanity's connection with the natural world.
Throughout history, taming
of animals has been a common practice. In India,
animals play a substantial role in agriculture and are also revered as deities. Animal welfare
is directed by the country's
constitution and laws, and the highest court identifies animal
rights. However, despite
efforts for the protection
of animals, there has been examples of cruelty towards
them persist in India, often without being reported.
Several examples
of animal cruelty
in India:
1. In the region of Karela, Malappuram a bison was impregnated with a baby (also
known as a gaur).
It
was viciously killed for the selling of its meat in the market. This unpleasant
incident took place in August 2020.
Some of the local authorities obtained a tip about the poaching of a wild
animal and performed a raid in response.
The raid revealed that six individuals in the Puncha Forest area had killed a
bison, with around 25 kilograms of
meat recovered from their residences. It was examined in the investigation
report that the men killed the Bison
in the district of Poopathiripara and disposed of its bones, carcass, and
hunting tools in the forest after
butchering it. A massive quantity
of meat was sold and circulated after the slaughter. Gradually, the criminals were arrested. Subsequently, a
trial was held, and they were punished to imprisonment and a heavy fine.
2. A wild elephant recently drifted out of the Silent Valley Forest and appeared in a nearby
village in search
of food. Unfortunately, someone provided her a pineapple loaded with
firecrackers. When she bit into it,
the pineapple blows up in her mouth, fracturing her jaw. The elephant then went
to the Vellar River in Malappuram and
stayed in the water for several hours. Despite rescue attempts, she died from
her injuries a few hours later. The
forest police have implied that the person who handed the elephant the fruit filled
with crackers was trying to harm wild animals by using it
as bait.
3.
A 26-year-old resident of Kapurthala district in
Punjab, was charged with hitting and running over a stray dog. The authorities saved a total of 12 dogs
from his house. Maneka Gandhi, an activist and well-known supporter of animal rights,
shared a video on Twitter that purportedly showed the accused
hitting a dog with his car, causing
it great pain before it died, as captured on camera. The video gained considerable attention
on social media platforms, showing the injured dog
limping away, leaving behind a footstep of blood on the road. Further investigation uncovered
that the accused was involved
in breeding and trading of dogs, often giving them
to dog-fighting groups.
Following objections from concerned residents
to activists from People for Animals (PFA), an FIR was filed.
Singh was recognized and detected using the vehicle registration number
obtained from the CCTV footage.
After a PFA representative submitted a complaint, Singh was found guilty
in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Cruelty top Animals Act.
4. On 4th
July 2020, in the district of Sundar Nagar, Bhopal, a 55-year-old man,
shamelessly indulged in an unnatural
sex with a cow at a dairy. This incident was taped by a CCTV camera
fitted at the dairy. A man named,
Sabir Ali, was under arrest and
charged with committing immoral acts of penetrative sexual activity
against an animal under section
377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. A few years ago in Bombay, a case of animal brutality took place wherein a stray dog was strapped
with a chain to a car, and
it was dragged on the road till it lost its life. The dog’s dead body was
recovered near the ONGC colony in Bandra. The Bandra Police
filed charges against
an individual who may have been possible
suspected of being involved
in the gruesome act. He is yet unidentified. The front legs of the dog were
attached with a rag, indicating that
it was dragged behind a vehicle. There was a local journalist who found the
unfortunate animal’s dead body on the roadside with crumpled eyes and blood dripping out from its wounds.
Provisions for safeguard of wildlife in India
The Indian Constitution has provisions aimed at protection and encouraging animal
rights in the country.
As per Article
48 of Part IV of the Indian
Constitution aims the state to shape agriculture and animal husbandry in a contemporary and scientific manner
while protecting and preserving cattle
breeds. It also forbids the killing of cows, calves, and other milch and draught animals.
Article 48A orders that the state shall defend and improve the environment,
forests, and wildlife.
Under
Part IV A of the Constitution, all citizens must defend and conserve the
environment as per Article 51A(g).
The Constitution also authorises the Parliament and state legislatures to pass
and implement laws against animal
cruelty while safeguarding wild animals and birds, as cited under Article 246,
read along with the Seventh Schedule.
As per Article 243G and
the Eleventh Schedule, Panchayats have been given
the authority to manage problems
about animal husbandry, dairy and poultry.
Likewise, as stated in Article 243W and the Twelfth Schedule,
municipalities are under an obligation to create regulations associated to the prevention of animal abuse.
Section
428 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 mentions that any individual who causes harm
to an animal may face imprisonment for up to two years or a fine, or
both.
Also, as per Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, causing injury
or death to an animal, irrespective of its value, can have consequences in a
penalty of imprisonment for five years,
or a
fine, or both.
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was announced
in 1960 with the main objective of stopping animal
cruelty. This Act particularly deals with safeguarding animals from fighting or shooting
competitions. Additionally, the Act also orders that animal
owners provide their animals with proper food, shelter, and care. The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 was presented
to protect wildlife conservation and fight unlawful
trading and smuggling of wildlife. This Act aims to safeguard endangered species worldwide.
Does the present legislation pertaining to the protection of wildlife in India need to be changed?
India
has put in place numerous laws to guard its wildlife, but these laws are not
being successfully enforced. The current
legislation levies fines, penalties, and charges for any infringement of India's wildlife
conservation rules. However,
there have been recommendations to modify these
laws to make them more effective.
!960 saw the passing of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Act, which became
effective in 1974, numerous forms of animal cruelty are punished by fines and/or penalties.
Yet, some advocacy groups consider
that the punishments are ineffective. The highest
penalty for a first-time offender is only fifty rupees, which is deemed by some as too
lenient.
Animal advocates are using the hashtag #NoMore50 to increase awareness about the important issue of animal
abuse and to push for judicial changes
that would make it a crime.
In February this year, the Union
Ministry of Fishers, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying proposed changes to
the 60 year old statue. However, during that
session, the legislature did not take any legal
action on those planned changes.
As a result, animal rights
activists are now mobilizing ahead
of the forthcoming legislative session
to urge the implementation of these changes.
Despite the efforts to alter the law, it remains unaffected. An Animal
Welfare Bill was created by the Animal Welfare
Board of India (AWBI) and submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(now the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate
Change) in 2011. However, no steps were taken by the authorities, as per the former vice-chairman Chinny Krishna of the AWBI.
Initially, the number of fines
ranged from Rs. 10 to Rs. 50 for unlawful
acts such as beating the animals, kicking,
torturing, and injuring the animals. On the opposite, the amended and
proposed draft indicates the amount of the fine to be a minimum of Rs. 75,
000. This is triple of the amount
fine which was imposed before.
After taking
Suo Moto notice
in this case,
the High Court called
out the animal cruelty
prevention case in “Re:
Bruno” in tribute of poor dog. In
the wake of three teenagers’ unfortunate dog Bruno’s death at Adimalathura Beach in Thiruvananthapuram, the court started a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) has been mandated by the court to devise a practical strategy
aimed at increasing public
awareness of animal rights and duties. The AWBI has been given a month to
provide the report, and the court has
emphasised that prompt action is required to prevent future occurrences of the
same kind. The court has also
underlined how important it is that the state government modernise veterinary
clinics and related infrastructure.
The court has also emphasised that district administrations must be given the
power to investigate allegations of animal mistreatment and has proposed
laws that forbid
flat dwellers from possessing specific animals.
Evolving Jurisprudence and Conclusion
By enforcing
environmental laws and ensuring that they are implemented effectively, the judiciary plays a critical role in protecting
species. The participation of the courts in wildlife conservation has been the subject
of various examinations in this paper, focusing its importance in forming
policies, enforcing regulations, and resolving disputes linked to wildlife protection.
Initially, the judiciary plays
as a guardian of environmental legislation, interpreting and implementing laws that protect wildlife habitats, species, and
ecosystems. Through landmark judgments and legal precedents, courts have acknowledged the fundamental rights of wildlife
and supported the principles of sustainable development. By making governments and industries liable for environmental
degradation, the judiciary promotes a culture
of responsibility towards
biodiversity conservation.
Secondly,
the judiciary plays as a check against
governmental actions or negligence for safeguarding of wildlife. With the help of public
interest litigations (PILs)
and judicial activism,
courts have made authorities to address critical issues such as habitat
destruction, poaching, and unlawful trade in wildlife artefacts. By interfering
in cases of environmental degradation
and species endangerment, the judiciary make sure that the interests of future generations
are protected against short term economic interests.
Besides,
the judiciary plays a fundamental role in solving conflicts between
conservation objectives and developing
projects. By matching competing interests and considering scientific evidence,
courts attempt to achieve a
harmonious coexistence between human activities and wildlife conservation
efforts. Through the standard of
sustainable development, courts encourage the implementation of ecologically
sensitive practices that reduces harm to wildlife while raising
socio economic progress.
Furthermore,
the judiciary works as a forum for solving disputes arising from conflicts over
natural resources and wildlife
management. By arranging a platform for stakeholders to present their arguments
and grievances, courts assist dialogue
and negotiation towards reaching consensus-based outcomes. The courts endeavour
to harmonise competing interests and
promote cooperative methods of protecting wildlife through alternative dispute
resolution processes including
arbitration and mediation.
Adding up, the judiciary plays an essential role in maintaining international agreements and treaties pointed
for the protection of wildlife and biodiversity. By merging principles of international law into domestic
jurisprudence, courts contribute to the global attempt to combat
transboundary dangers to wildlife, such as habitat
loss, climate change, and wildlife
trafficking. Through judicial
aid and mutual assistance, courts improve the effectiveness of international
conservation initiatives and encourage cross-border collaboration in wildlife protection.
In
conclusion, the judiciary's responsibility in wildlife conservation is
multifaceted and indispensable. By interpretation
and enforcing environmental laws, holding governments responsible, solving
conflicts, and upholding
international obligations, courts contribute majorly to the preservation of
biodiversity and the sustainable use
of natural resources. However, there are still countless challenges to make
sure efficient enforcement, improving
judicial capacity and promoting greater
public participation in environmental governance. Nevertheless, with continued
judicial engagement and public awareness, the judiciary can remain to play a transformative responsibility in modelling a future where wildlife thrives
in harmony along with human
developments.
Article Information
THE EVOLUTION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION LAWS IN INDIA & THE ROLE OF JUDICIARY
Authors: MR. SAMARTH DABAS, DR. GAZALA SHARIF
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.