Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

INTRODUCTION

Wildlife conservation is the practice of protecting animal species and their habitats. It is achieved partially through legislation and partially through active involvement of people, welfare groups, NGOs and most importantly through executive’s will. The need for establishment and protection of public lands, and responsible public practices that conserve wild animal populations also takes an important role. Major threats to wildlife which are sorted out through the legislation are Habitat destruction/degradation/fragmentation, Over exploitation of habitat resources, Hunting, Poaching, Climate change and Pollution

HISTORY OF WILDLIFE PROTECTION LEGISLATION IN INDIA:

• The first such law was passed by the British Indian Government in 1887 called the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1887. The law made the possession and sale of wild birds which were either killed or captured illegal.
• A second legislation was enacted in the year 1912 called the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act. This was amended in 1935 when the Wild Birds and Animals Protection (Amendment) Act 1935 was passed.
• During the British Raj, wildlife protection was not accorded a priority. It was only in 1960 that the issue of protection of wildlife and the prevention of certain species from becoming extinct came into the fore.

• Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.was passed on August 21, 1972, but was later implemented on September 9, 1972.
• This act prohibits the capturing, killing, poisoning or trapping of wild animals
• The government enacted the Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1972 which laid down a comprehensive set of rules and regulation with respect to the protection of wildlife in India. It laid down the provisions for the setting up of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, etc. Project Tiger is being implemented which has caused the dwindling tiger population to increase. The country saw a 30% rise in the tiger population from 2010 to 2014.

AMENDMENT/PROGRESS MADE UNDER THE ACT :

Wildlife Protection Amendment Act 2002: This amendment for this act was made in 2002 but came into force in January 2003 and under it, the punishment for defaulters is harsher.

Punishments under the Wildlife Protection Amendment Act, 2002. if caught in the process of trade of animal trophies and other articles derived from wild animals they will be subjected to three years of imprisonment and/or a fine of Rs. 25,000/-

Wildlife Protection Amendment Act, 2006 : The act was amended in the year 2006 and its purpose is to strengthen the conservation of tigers and other endangered species by combating crimes against them through the special Crime Control Bureau.

Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill, 2013: The Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill, 2013, was introduced by Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan in the Rajya Sabha on August 5, 2013 .The bill seeks to further amend the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It has a provision of imprisonment up to seven years for poaching or hunting of wild animals. The Bill also protects the hunting rights of Scheduled Tribes in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Withdrawal of the amendment bill: In the year 2015, Prakash Javadekar asked to withdraw the amendment bill to further amend the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and announced a lot of changes which needs to be made before actually implementing it. These changes were announced in Rajya Sabha.

SALIENT FEATURES:

This Act provides for the protection of a listed species of animals, birds and plants, and also for the establishment of a network of ecologically-important protected areas in the country.

The Act provides for the formation of wildlife advisory boards, wildlife wardens, specifies their powers and duties, etc.

It helped India become a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

• CITES is a multilateral treaty with the objective of protecting endangered animals and plants.
• It is also known as the Washington Convention and was adopted as a result of a meeting of IUCN members.
• For the first time, a comprehensive list of the endangered wildlife of the country was prepared.

The Act prohibited the hunting of endangered species.

Scheduled animals are prohibited from being traded as per the Act’s provisions.

The Act provides for licenses for the sale, transfer and possession of some wildlife species.

It provides for the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, etc.

Its provisions paved the way for the formation of the Central Zoo Authority. This is the central body responsible for the oversight of zoos in India. It was established in 1992.

The Act created six schedules which gave varying degrees of protection to classes of flora and fauna.

• Schedule I and Schedule II (Part II) get absolute protection and offences under these schedules attract the maximum penalties.

The schedules also include species which may be hunted. There are six schedules provided in the Wildlife Protection Act.

Schedule I	This Schedule covers endangered species
Schedule II	Animals under this list are also accorded high protection.
Schedule III & IV	This list is for species that are not endangered. This includes protected species but the penalty for any violation is less compared to the first two schedules
Schedule V	This schedule contains animals which can be hunted.
Schedule VI	This list contains plants that are forbidden from cultivation.
	Examples are clearly mentioned in the Act.

The National Board for Wildlife was constituted as a statutory organisation under the provisions of this Act.

• This is an advisory board that offers advice to the central government on issues of wildlife conservation in India.
• It is also the apex body to review and approve all matters related to wildlife, projects of national parks, sanctuaries, etc.
• The chief function of the Board is to promote the conservation and development of wildlife and forests.
• It is chaired by the Prime Minister.

The Act also provided for the establishment of the National Tiger Conservation Authority.

• It is a statutory body of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change with an overall supervisory and coordination part, performing capacities as given in the Act.
• Its mandate is to strengthen tiger conservation in India.
• It gives statutory authority to Project Tiger which was launched in 1973 and has put the endangered tiger on a guaranteed path of revival by protecting it from extinction.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS:

R. Simon v. Union of India[1] Brief Facts : The petitioner who was the manufacturer of coats, caps, gloves blankets and snake skin items like bags, shoes and brief cases challenged 1991 Amendment which

prohibited trade in animal articles. It was contended that the said Act is colourable legislation as it indirectly takes away fundamental right to carry on any trade or business under Art. 19(1)(g), which cannot be done directly. Further certain wild animals are harmful and serve no useful purpose. While rejecting the contentions the Delhi High Court held that every animal is important in maintaining ecological balance and it is the duty of every Indian citizen to protect and improve the wildlife in the country. Further, no fundamental right is absolute and the same can be restricted in public interest. Wildlife protection is very much in public interest. Hence the 1991 Amendment is constitutional. Similar decision has been given in Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association vs. Union of India .

Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India[1]

 Facts: In this case the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of 1991 Amendment, which prohibited trade in imported ivory. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of this amendment under Art.19 (6). The Court observed that a trade, which is dangerous to ecology, may be regulated or totally prohibited. Balancing the social interest and the fundamental rights, a total prohibition is reasonable.

Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India[2]

Facts: The petitioner filed a Public Interest Petition challenging the order of the Wild Life Warden, Forest Department Government of Madhya Pradesh, granting 305 fishing permits to the tribes formerly residing within, the Pench National Park area for fishing in the Tottadoh Reservoir situated in the heart of the Pench National Park Tiger Reserve.

Under Sec.26(l)(i) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, any person who fishes in contravention of any rules made in this behalf by the State Government, shall be punishable in the manner provided in that Section.

Therefore, the ancestors of the present tribes could not have acquired any fishing right in the Pench River. Although the necessary proclamations were issued earlier nobody came forward to claim their rights on account of illiteracy and unawareness. They have claimed that their traditional right of fishing should be preserved as this is the only source of their livelihood. The reservoir is in the center of the National Park area which partly falls in Maharashtra and partly in Madhya Pradesh. Fishing activity had been started in this reservoir by the Fisheries Development Corporation of the State of Madhya Pradesh despite protests. The petitioner as well as the State of Maharashtra has pointed out that if the fishing permits are issued, the bio-diversity and ecology of the area will be seriously affected. The National Park is also a tiger reserve and all these other activities have a direct bearing on the protection of Wildlife in the National Park area. The Court issued detailed directions for the proper implementation of the licence conditions. The directions included the issue of photo identity cards for permit holders; restriction of the route travelled while entering and leaving the Park; a prohibition on lighting fires for cooking

---

or for any other purpose; and strict monitoring by the State Government to ensure that, there was no poaching.

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India^[1]

Facts: In this petition the court gave a direction to the State of Chhattisgarh to prepare a rescue plan to save wild Buffalo, an endangered species from extinction and to make available necessary funds and resources required for the said purposes. The court rejected the stand of lack of funds taken by the State Government in view of centrally sponsored scheme, framed by Central Government and directed the State of Chhattisgarh to give effect fully to the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “the Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats”, so as to save wild buffalo from extinction. The State would take immediate steps to ensure that interbreeding between wild and domestic buffaloes does not take place and genetic purity of the wild species is maintained. The state is also directed to take immediate steps to undertake intensive research and monitor the wild buffalo population in Udanti Wildlife sanctuary.

Babran Kumawat v. Union of India[2]

Facts: The petitioner was the manufacturer of Mammoth ivory. Mammoth animal had already disappeared in Alaska and Siberia due to climatic conditions. The question was can it be considered as an imported ivory under the 1991 Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held that 1991 Amendment prohibits trade of ivory of every description. It may be an elephant ivory or mammoth ivory. Hence, the petitioner cannot carry on the trade in mammoth ivory.

Pradeep Krishen v. Union of India[3]

Facts: The petitioner challenged the order of M.P. government by which permission was given to the villagers living near the sanctuaries and national parks to collect tendu leaves through contractors. In state of M.P. 11 areas have been declared as sanctuaries and national parks covering around 12.4% of total forest cover in M.P. The petitioner contended that a number of trees in these areas have been destroyed due to the entry of villagers. The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to take urgent steps to prohibit entry of villager and tribals in national parks and sanctuaries.

Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India[4] Facts: The petitioner Organization challenged the grant of mining licenses in the area declared as Tiger Reserve in Alwar district of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court cancelled all the licenses as they were given in the tiger reserve area.

---

CONCLUSION:

 The legislature and judiciary in our country are both aware of significance of wild life. With constantly shrinking forest cover, the survival of wild life has been jeopardized. Still we have to do our best to protect the wild life. Every citizens of the country expects to be protected by State but the animals cannot demand justice. It is for the human beings to see that our floral and faunal wealth is not wasted or destroyed. Therefore, we should work towards protection and conservation of our rich wild life. Apart from the oft-cited ‘implementation problem’ of the Act, there are numerous reasons where it has failed to meet its desired objectives. One such reason, and perhaps the most important one, is the slow rate of conviction especially in the trail courts, which conducts wildlife related cases. This has led to a total disregard for wildlife laws making them an ineffective deterrent to rampant hunting, poaching and habitat destruction by offenders.

K.S. Sai Pavan

(3^th year, L.L.B (5 YDC), University College of Law, Osmania University, Hyderabad)

Email : mrpavankasturi@gmail.com

---