DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT 1972 AND RULES

SUBJECT

CRIMINAL LAW 2

NAME OF THE FACULTY

NANDINI C P

SEMESTER-4

NAME OF THE CANDIDATES

VATTIKUTI DIVYA CHOWDARY -2017106

SHAIK JAVVAD UR REHMAN – 2017083

P. AMRUTHA GAYATHRI – 2017070

P. KRISHNA CHAITANYA - 2017064

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION - DIVYA-2017106

1.INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................4

2.EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT............................................................5

3.OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................6

4.INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT.................................................................7

CHAPTER 2- WILD LIFE CONSERVATION- REHMAN -2017083

5.HUNTING.......................................................................................................15

6.PROTECTED AREAS.....................................................................................16

7.CONSERVATION OF FORESTS....................................................................18

8.FLORA AND FAUNA......................................................................................19

CHAPTER 3- PENALITIES AND PUNISHMENTS -AMRUTHA 2017070

9.HUNTING.........................................................................................................24

10. PROTECTED AREAS......................................................................................25

11. SEIZURE, CONFISICATION AND FORFEITURE........................................26

12. INVESTIGATION OF OFFENCES..................................................................27

13. PENALITIES....................................................................................................28

CHAPTER 4- INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS -CHAITANYA- 2017064

14. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS................................................................37

15.CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS................................................................44

16. REFERENCES..................................................................................................45

2|Page
 CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

1. M. K. Ramesh, The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 of India: An Agenda for Reform, 4
Asia Pac. J. Envtl. L. 271 (1999)

This article talks about the after results of the implementing of Wild life Protection Act 1972.
Statement of Objects, Reasons and the Scheme of WPA1972 which came into existence Soon
after the 1972 Stockholm Conference are explained in this article. the walking back to past to
understand the rules and policy under wild life protection Act 1972 which seeks to protect
wildlife by creating sanctuaries, national parks and closed areas. The article also talks about the
Strategy for the Protection of Wildlife. The article also mentions about different amendments
made to the Wild Life protection Act 1972.

2. Maneka Gandhi, Ozar Husain, Raj Panjwani, Animal Laws of Inida, (4Th edn.) , Review
by: Ali Mehdi, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol. 54, No. 4 (OCTOBER-
DECEMBER 2012), pp. 562-564 Published by: Indian Law Institute

The article says that in order to enlarge the ambit of law and to extend protection to the wild
animals, WPA1972 was enacted. It talks about Animal Laws in India, how they evolved from
time to time, the background for making those specific animal laws. It also mentions about
various judgments delivered by the High Courts and the Supreme Court on various issues related
to wild animals protection and WPA 1972.

3. FOREST RIGHTS ACT, 2006: SETTLING LAND, UNSETTLING

CONSERVATIONISTS, Antara Roy, Sroyon Mukherjee, The NUJS Law Review, 2008

In this article the author discusses about the background of Forest Rights Act. the paper also
discusses the situation prevailing in India related to forests. It also examines the environmental
and social arguments followed by a summary of the principal provisions of the Act.

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

The number of cases reported under Wildlife Protection Act in India was 829 during the year
2015. Many people regard that India does not have strong wildlife conservation law, but the fact
is that we have some of the most stringent laws related to protection of wildlife. The Government
of India has introduced various types of legislation in response to the growing destruction of
wildlife and forests. In 1972 the “Wild Life Protection Act” was enacted and after that the act
was amended many times recent amendment being made in 2006. The interpretation and
understanding of the Act has been enhanced by decisions of High Courts and the Supreme Court
since the past 40 years, yet there still remain unanswered questions and grey areas in the law.
The Act is generally described as a strong legislation for wildlife protection, however, questions
about its level of implementation remain.

THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION 2006 AMMENDMENT:

The 2006 amendment introduced a new chapter (IV B) for establishment of the National Tiger
Conservation Authority and notification of Tiger Reserves. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau
(WCCB) was constituted vide the 2006 amendment to monitor and control the illegal trade in
wildlife products.

Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2013

The Ministry of environment and forests has proposed the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment
Bill, 2013 which was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on August 5, 2013. As India is a party to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
hence changes are required for the Act to fulfill its obligations under the CITES. The Bill has
been referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Forests which seeks to amend the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Bill protects the rights of STs of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands regarding hunting and also has a provision of imprisonment up to seven years for
poaching or hunting of wild animals. but the bill is withdrawn in Rajyasabha in 2015.

4|Page
 DEVELOPMENT AND EVOLUTION

BEFORE INDEPENDENCE:

The earliest enactments to protect wild animals in India were Madras Elephant Preservation Act,
1873, Elephant Preservation Act., 1879 and Wild Birds Protection Act, 18871, The Wild Birds
and Animals Protection Act, 19122.

The first comprehensive law for the protection of wildlife and its habitat was perhaps the Hailey
National Park Act, 1936 which established the Hailey (now Corbett) National Park in the State of
Uttar Pradesh3. “Indian Forest Act of 1927 included restrictions in protected forests and
authorized the creation of sanctuaries”4. “India is the first Country to enact Wildlife Protection
Act because of its wide range of wild life. 5The British government in the year 1912 passed the
Wild Bird and Animals Protection Act, 1912 which was amended in 1935”.

AFTER INDEPENDENCE:
“After Independence, the Constituent Assembly in Draft Constitution placed "Protection of Wild
Birds and Wild Animals" in the State List. It was later shifted to Concurrent List through the
42nd Amendment Act 1976”. The amendment gave the prior importance to the centre by placing
'forests' and 'protection of wild animals' and birds and certain other subjects in the Concurrent
List.6 Understanding the importance of wildlife and in order to prevent its depletion, many steps
are been taken by enacting ‘The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, National Zoo Policy, 1998,
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960’.

1
S.A.K. Azad , 2004, Hunting of Wild Animals and its Legal Control in India.
2
Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v.UOI, AIR 1997 Del. 267
3
Forest Laws, Wildlife Laws and the Environment, Sanjay Upadhyay, Videh Upadhyay, 2002, page no. 229
4
Environmental Law and Policy in India, Divan and Rosencranz ,2000), page no. 31
5
, Environmental Chemistry, Wildlife, B. K. Sharma, 2007.
6
Wildlife management: Wildlife Protection Legislation, S. N. Dhyani, 1994, page no. 62.

5|Page
 OBJECTIVES

The conservation of wildlife is a global priority with the survival of wildlife species largely
dependent on habitats beyond political boundaries. “In 1972, India enacted the Wildlife
Protection Act and Project Tiger to safeguard crucial habitat; further federal protections were
promulgated in the 1980s.” “The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is an Act of the Parliament of
India enacted for protection of plants and animal species. The Act provides for the protection of
wild animals, birds and plants.”

The Act has two main aims to conserve protected species of wildlife:

1. By providing for strict regulation of the possession, transport and trade of wild animal
products and by prohibiting the hunting of all protected animals and reserved species.

2. Safeguarding wildlife habitat by providing for the creation and management of protected
areas like National Parks, sanctuaries.

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972

“The Wildlife Protection Act 1972 is an important statute that provides a powerful legal
framework for Prohibition of hunting, Protection and management of wildlife habitats,
Establishment of protected areas, Regulation and control of trade in parts and products derived
from wildlife, Management of zoos. The amended WPA 1972 does not allow for any commercial
exploitation of forest produce in both national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, and local
communities can collect forest produce only for their bona fide needs. The WPA provides for
investigation and prosecution of offences in a court of law by authorized officers of the forest
department and police officers. The act contains elaborate procedures for dealing with legal
rights in proposed protected areas and acquisition of any land or interest under this law is
deemed as an acquisition for a public purpose”

6|Page
INTERPRETATION OF ACT

The definitions section of the Act plays a major part in setting out its scope in terms of the
articles to which it applies. In Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd & Anr. vs. UOI7, the Delhi
High Court interpreted that shahtoosh shawl will fall within the definition of “animal article”. In
another case 8 the Madras High Court allowe “ the collection of coral for commercial use in lime
manufacture held that dead pieces a protected marine living organism would not fall within the
definition of animal article”.

9
In the case of CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WWF INDIA V. UOI and
GOA FOUNDATION V. UNION OF INDIA10 The Supreme Court has held that “Any non-
forest activity falling within sanctuaries, National Parks, and 10 kilometers of their boundaries
now requires prior consultation with the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild
Life.”

Unlike the offence of illegal possession, offences in relation to hunting or illegal trade
necessarily involve the prosecution proving the illegal act alleged to be committed by the
accused in order to secure a conviction11. Despite all these judgments in respect of seized
property under Section 39, there is still a conception that under the law, all wild animals are
property of the State Government12. The courts also found that “Efforts and work should be
made to involve local people in the conservation process, and they should be educated about the
benefits and importance of preservation of the wildlife”.13

The courts have also expanded scope of application of the Wildlife Protection in a number of
ways such as in the case of Chief Forest Conservator, Wildlife v. Nisar Khan14 , the Supreme
Court of India prohibited the trapping and of birds by declaring it as hunting within the purview
of the Act. The courts also laid, serious concerns are laid over the habitual offenders, who after a
7
2007 (143) DLT 477
8
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER V. MESSRS KAYPEE INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS PRIVATE
LIMITED AND OTHERS 2005 AIR (MAD) 304
9
(2013) 8 SCC 234
10
(2014) 6 scc 590
11
Rekhchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2008 (4) MPHT 464)
12
Baburao v. State of Maharashtra and Others
13
AIR1999Ori15
14
AIR 2003 SC 1867

7|Page
number of convictions, was still found to have indulged in the act of smuggling and poaching of
wildlife15.

In the case of STATE OF BIHAR V. MURAD ALI KHAN & OTHERS16, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court raised alaram of ecological imbalances and consequential environmental damage,
stating the urgency of immediate, determined and effective steps to preserve wildlife. In a similar
case related to ban on trade of finished skins of animals, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while
upholding the law for ban on trade, observed that “Wildlife is part of India’s heritage; it further
said that ‘laws made for protection and preservation of the same come under public interest”17

EXPORT IMPORT POLICY

In Zavaray S. Poonawalla v. Union of India18, the Bombay High Court allowed the import of a
leopard skin (listed in Schedule I) finding that despite the prohibition in the Export Import
Policy, the Regional Deputy Director (Wildlife) was not entitled to enforce it, and that there was
no violation of the Act. In Commissioner of Customs v. Kishan Kumar Kejriwal19, the
Calcutta High Court allowed the import of the shells of Nautilus (listed in Schedule I) without
looking at the provisions of the Act or the prohibition in the Export Import Policy.

15
‘SANSAR CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN’ (2010) 10 SCC 604
16
(1988) 4 SCC 655
17
‘G.R SIMON & OTHER V UNION OF INDIA’- AIR 1997 DEL 301
18
2003 (159) ELT 44
19
2011 (263) ELT 357

8|Page
 CASE ANALYSIS

1. Case and citation: “ GEER V. CONNECTICUT- 161 U.S. 519 (1896)”,

Topic: wild life protection

Chapter: Export, sale and possession of restriced animals and their products
Provision of Law: section 2546 - General Statutes of Connecticut

Briefs Facts of the case:

The defendant lawfully killed certain game birds in the state of Connecticut during an open
season on the birds. However, the defendant was subsequently convicted of possessing
woodcock, ruffled grouse and quail with the unlawful intent of transporting them out of state in
violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2546 (rev. of 1888) which provided, in pertinent part, that: " An
information was filed against the plaintiff in the police court of New London, Connecticut on 19
October 1889 for unlawfully receiving and having in his possession, with the wrongful and
unlawful intent to procure the transportation beyond the limits of the state, certain woodcock,
ruffled grouse, and quail, killed within this state after the first day of October, 1889. No person
shall at any time kill any woodcock, ruffled grouse of quail for the purpose of conveying the
same beyond the limits of this State; or shall transport or have in possession, with intent to
procure the transportation beyond said limits, any of such birds killed within this State. “

Question of Law involved: The provision says that “no person shall at any time kill any
woodcock, rued grouse or quail for the purpose of conveying the same beyond the limits of this
State, or shall transport or have in possession, with intent to procure the transportation beyond
said limits, any of such birds killed within this State"
Judgment
“The trial of the charge resulted in the conviction of the defendant and the imposing of a fine
upon him”.

9|Page
Grounds for Appeal:
After that the case went to appeal in the criminal court of common pleas, where the defendant
‘demurred to the information on several grounds one among them being that the statute upon
which that prosecution was based violated the Constitution of the United States.’
Judgment and Order:
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction pursuant to this statute.

Ratio decidendi and obiter dicta:

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and held that the state of Connecticut owned the
game birds in trust for the benefit of the people of the state, who owned all of the wild game in
the state in common. Thus, the Court concluded that the state had the right to keep the game
birds within the state for all purposes and to create and regulate its own internal state commerce
with respect to the birds. The Court held that the Connecticut statute was not governed by the
Commerce Clause of U.S. Constitution Article. I, s. 8 and that its enactment did not violate the
Constitution.
Critical Analysis:
In this case The Court explained that the state had the police power to preserve a food supply that
belonged to the people of Connecticut by requiring that the commerce in game birds be kept
within the state.

2. Case title and Citation: Wildlife v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. on 11 April, 2018, CC No.
301845/2016
Topic: wild life protection act 1972
Provision of Law: 51 of Wildlife (Protection) Act.
Briefs Facts of the case:
Accused persons Ashok Kumar, Nand Kumar and Naresh Kumar were apprehended with one
baby leopard skin having brown colour and black spots (uncured skin). A raiding team was
constituted which reached the place and on identification by secret informer the accused persons
came there in a car driven by Naresh Kumar while the other two were sitting in the car, were
apprehended after signal by decoy customer HC Pradeep Kumar. The accused had no legal

10 | P a g e
document to deal with the skin, same. It was seized and FIR was registered and all the accused
were arrested. Disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded. Preliminary Issues (or)
Issues raised:
It is alleged that the seized leopard skin is a scheduled animal specified in Schedule-I of Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 and that accused persons have contravened Section2(2),9,39,49,49(B)(1)
and 52 r/w Section 51of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Points for determination:
Under Section 57 of the Act, prosecution has to prove that accused was found in
possession/custody or control of any part or deliberately of any animal and until the contrary is
proved, which is to be proved by the accused, custody of such person will be treated to be
unlawful custody.
Cases referred:
C. Muniappan & Ors. V. State of Tamilnadu AIR 2010 SC 3718
Yogesh Singh V. Mahabeer Singh & Anr. AIR 2016 SC 5160
Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P AIR 2012 SC 2254
Judgment and Order:
The leopard skin is specified in schedule I of the Act and thus the accused persons have
contravened the provisions of Section 49 and 49(B) of the Act. Accordingly, all three accused
persons are held guilty and are convicted for the offence U/s 49 and 49(B) punishable U/s 51 of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Comment or Observations or Critical Analysis:
In this case we can understand what essentials are to be met to make an accused liable under
section 51 of WPA 1972 and how prosecution successfully proves the offence.

11 | P a g e
 3. Case title and Citation: INDIAN HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM V UNION OF INDIA,
decided on 27 August, 2003 Appeal (civil) 7533 of 1997

Topic: wild life protection act 1972

Chapter: Constitutionality of Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1991
Provisions of Law: Article 14, 19(1) of constitution

Briefs Facts of the case:

In this case “The petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of Amendment Act 44,
1991, to the Constitution of India, which prohibited trade in imported ivory. The appeals which
arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20.3.1997 passed by a Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court. The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of articles
relating to art and craft manufactured from ivory. The appellants imported ivory from African
countries. They have manufactured certain articles out of the same”. It is not in dispute that the
said import had legally been made as there did not exist any restriction in that regard.

Issues raised:
The counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that the “ impugned provisions of the
Amendment Act violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India in as much as thereby the
right of the appellant to trade in ivory has unjustly been prohibited.” He also submitted that
restrictions imposed by reason of the said Amendment Act being excessive, the same must be
held to be confiscatory in nature. “The Amending Act is also invalid under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, being irrational and arbitrary”.
Question of Law :
Whether the Ammendment that is the wild life (Protection) Ammendmen Act of 1991 is
constitutional?
Cases referred:
Unni Krishnan J.P. and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(1993) 1 SCC 645]

12 | P a g e
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1991 indirectly seeks to protect
Indian elephant and to restrict its further depletion, and so, the appellant petition was dismissed.

Ratio decidendi:

The court decided that the act seeks for protection of elephants and to prevent their number from
being decreased in this case made sure that the elephants will be protected.

Observations:
The case thus deals with the constitutionality of the guidelines and constitutionality of 1991
Amendment to Wild Life Protection Act 1972 which is challenged on the basis of fundamental
rights of constitution.

13 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 2

Literature Review
1. CHANGING TERRAIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSHIP IN INDIA'S
FORESTS, Arpitha Kodiveri

In this Article it will locate the notion of environmental citizenship derived from a schematic
study of the struggles by forest dwelling communities in India's forests. It also draw on the
relationship between environmental citizenship and law in India. It with conclude with an
analysis of these changes on the environmental citizenship of forest dwelling communities. It
also aims to provide a schematic discussion of how citizenship becomes the terrain on which
rights and control over natural resources is being contested.

2. Demystifying the environmental clearance process in India, Shibani Ghosh

This article focuses on one of the important executive action pertaining to the fate of
environmental clearances in India, under the notification on September 14, 2006 relating to The
Environment Protection Act, 1986. Then, there is a paradigm shift towards loopholes in the
legislation, which are subsequently covered by various amendments, executive orders and
judicial interpretations. To sum up, the article analyses the legislation, its loopholes, then
attempts to fill them via amendment actions, and filling of remaining vacuum by judicial
pronouncements, NGT decisions etc.

3. GRANTING ANIMALS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION: A MISPLACED

APPROACH? AN ANALYSIS IN LIGHT OF ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA
V. A. NAGARAJA, Jessamine Therese Mathew & Ira Chadha-Sridhar

In this Article the summary of Jallikattu case is explained in brief and also mentioned about the
relation between legal personhood and rights, the problem with a rights based approach to animal
welfare and protection and concluded with provisions of legislative acts and laws.

14 | P a g e
 WILD LIFE CONSERVATION

It is a shocking truth that several animals and birds are standing on the position of destruction
because of excessive poaching, illegal trading, loss of habitat pollution and deforestation. One of
the biggest challenges that the government environmentalists are facing in India is to put a full
stop on the killing and trading of the animals. Under the conservation only Governement
introduced many projects like Project Tiger, Project Elephant, Crocodile Conservation Project,
Vulture Conservation, Indian Rhino Vision 2020 etc., like this many are introduced for the
purpose of conservation. Wildlife conservation is the practice of protection wild plants and
animal species and their habits.Wildlife plays an important role in balancing the ecosystem and
provides stability to different natural processes of the nature like rainfall, transpiration from
plant,changing of temperature is also because of it, heat evolution by animals, fertility of soil,
making of manure by earthworms. The goal of wildlife conservation is to the ensure that nature
will be protected for future generations to enjoy and also to recognize the importance of wildlife
andfor humans and other species.

Shahtoosh Case:

The Shahtoosh wool is derived from the soft undercoat of the Tibetan Antelope also known as
Chiru. Three to four Chiru has to be killed for one shawl. In 1977 the Governement of
Indiadeclared Chiru as protected animal under Shedule 1 of the Wild Protection Act, 1972. A
PIL was filed in J&K High Court. In 2002 it was banned that manufacture of Shahtoosh shawl is
banned.20

Hunting

Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping animals or pursuing or tracking them with the intent
of doing so. Hunting wildlife is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove
predators that are dangerous to humans. Lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is
the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species.

20
http://www.manupatrafast.com/articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=c234464b-a575-49d8-9b06-
0273ac0d75b4&txtsearch=Subject:%20Environment

15 | P a g e
Various forms of wild animals are hunt now for the commercial purpose like horns, tusks, skin
and various objects which can get from them. Animals like tigers, rhinos and elephants are
hunted for the high value international trade in tiger bone, rhino horn & ivory.

In this case of State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan21 it has been held that hunting is an offence
under Section 51(1) of the Wildlife Protection Act. In this case the Range Forest Officer filed a
complaint in Magistrate's Court in writing that he the accused had shot and killed an elephant in
Range Forest and had removed the tusks from the elephant. Hon'ble Supreme Court said that
"Cognizance of an offence against the 'Act' can he taken by a court only on the complaint of the
officer mentioned in Sec. 55 and it has been done in this case."

In the case Trilok Bahadur vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh22, According to him, when the
officer ordered him to shoot in air, the tiger jumped on to him instead of fleeing. Acting to
defend his life, he shot the tiger and it died as a consequence. He was later awarded with a
simple imprisonment for 6 months by the Dy. Commissioner. The High Court, upon perusal of
facts and circumstances, drawn an inference and held that he was not guilty since he was acting
in good faith to save his life. He was absolved from all the charges.

Private Defense

In Trilok Bahadur vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, According to him, when the officer
ordered him to shoot in air, the tiger jumped on to him instead of fleeing. Acting to defend his
life, he shot the tiger and it died as a consequence. He was later awarded with a simple
imprisonment for 6 months by the Dy. Commissioner. The High Court, upon perusal of facts and
circumstances, drawn an inference and held that he was not guilty since he was acting in good
faith to save his life. He was absolved from all the charges. This can be taken as private defence
as he did not have the intention to kill. In some rare cases based on the circumstances it would
accept as private defence.

21
https://www.casemine.com/search/in?q=murad+ali+khan
22
http://nlsenlaw.org/wildlife/national-legal-framework/high-court-cases/trilok-bahadur-v-state-of-arunachal-
pradesh-1979-cr-l-j-1409-gauhati-high-court/

16 | P a g e
 PROTECTED AREAS (SANCTUARIES, NATIONAL PARKS, AND CLOSED AREAS)

India occupies 2.4% in the total world area with 7-8% of total recorded world species including
46,000 plant species and 91,000 animal species. Protecting this huge numbers has always been a
challenge and prime obligation. As of July 2016, Protected Areas occupy an area of 4.89% in the
total land slide. Out of which, state of Madhya Pradesh and Andaman Nicobar Islands have
maximum number of National Parks (9 each). Highest number of Wildlife reserves were found
in the Andaman Nicobar Islands (96), followed by Maharashtra (41) and Tamil Nadu (29).

In the case of Pradeep Krishna vs. Union of India23 the petitioner, an environmentalist,
challenged before the court that the order of the Department of Forest, State of Madhya Pradesh.
The order permitted collection of Tendu leaves from sanctuaries and National Parks by villagers
living around the boundaries in order to maintain their traditional rights. The petitioner
contended that the said order violates Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Articles 14 and 21, 48-A 86
51-A (g) of the Constitution. He also argued on two points that is

(1)Whether an area declared as sanctuary and National Park under Sec. 18 can be exploited for
collection of minor forest produce in violation of the restrictions contained in the Act?

(2)Whether State Government has the right to exploit minor forest produce from the sanctuaries
& National Parks?

There should be final notification on acquisition of rights in and over the land to be included in a
Sanctuary or National Park as it was not given by State Government so not liable.

Section 29 of the Amendment Act, 2002 expressly prohibits visiting to any national park,
biosphere reserve without prior permission of Chief Wild Life Warden. This section also
mandatorily prohibits causing damage to any boundary wall/mark of any sanctuary, teasing of
any animal in the sanctuary/reserve.

23
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wild.htm

17 | P a g e
In Tariin Bharat Singh v Union of India, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme
Court, alleging illegal mining in Sariska Tiger Park and pleaded the Court to issue directions for
enforcing certain statutory regulations under statutory notification. The Supreme Court thus held
that no mining activities shall be operated within the Tiger Park and ordered for immediate halt
of mining.

CONSERVATION OF FORESTS

As the name suggests it is the preservation and protection of forests. Importance of forests are
that there are many trees in forests which give oxygen through which life exist and absorb the
carbon dioxide which releases from human beings, through forests pollution is controlled, it also
prevent soil erosion. It also plays a important role in water cycle and control moisture levels of
our eco system. So the Government introduced Forest Conservation Act 1980.

In Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India24, in these case there is a illegal felling of

timber then Supreme Court said that the felling of trees and mining are suspended in the forest
areas. No one can do the felling of tress, deforestation, mining in the forest area was ordered by
Supreme Court.25

Prohibition of picking, uprooting etc., of specified plants

No person shall willfully pick, uproot, damage, destroy, or collect any specified plant from any
forest land and area specified by notification by central government not to touch or pluck those
plants or any person who is in the possess of those plants which is prohibited by the central
government by the notification whether the plant is dead or alive the person is liable. No person
will cultivate a plant which is prohibited without the proper license.

Closed area:

24
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ace7e4b014971141004e
25
https://www.legalbites.in/forest-conservation-case-importance-forest-protection/

18 | P a g e
The state government may, by notification, prohibit hunting in any area for specific period of
time and declare the area as closed area. No hunting shall take place in such area for prescribed
time under statutory notification.

Flora and Fauna:

India has a rich bio-heritage, covering about 30,000 species of insects, 200 plus species of birds
and 500 species of mammals. The myriad bio-life range covers Royal Bengal Tigers to only lions
outside Africa. In addition to the diversity in animal life, Indian wildlife is home to numerous
reptile and bird species. In order to protect and conserve the wildlife, the Government of India
set-up as many as 66 national parks, 333 wildlife reserves, and 35 zoological gardens all-over the
country.

CASE ANALYSIS

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Bharadwaj v. State of Rajashtan

Citation: 2002 CriLJ 179

Provisions of law:

Section 40 says about the possession of wildanimal skin or any object which is prohibited,
section 49 says that the purchase or receive any captive animal, read with section 51which says

19 | P a g e
that without licence or breach of any licence will be liable under this section of the Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972.

Brief Facts:

At the house of accused situated at kumbha a search was conducted and during the search two
skins of Panthor were recovered in one white bag and they were seized and the servants who are
present at that time said that they are not aware of it, as the accused was in the police custody in
another case. Charges were framed against him.

Question of Law:

Whether the accused is liable under section 40, 49 with section 51 of Wild Life Protection
Act,1972?

Judgement:

The Accused is liable for the possession of animal object which is prohibited to kept in the house
and is laible for three years imprisonment.

Comments:

He with the knowledge kept the skin of Panthor so he is laible there is no chance of excusing if
he done with the knowledge and knowing the consequences.

Case Title: Ayyub v. State of Rajashtan

Citation: 2003 CriLJ 2954, RLW 2003 (4) Raj 2641, 2003 (4) WLC 273

Provisions of law:

Section 51which says that without licence or breach of any licence will be liable under this
section of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

20 | P a g e
Brief Facts: A Jeep with number RNV 2235 was confiscated by the regional forest officer,
Mandrayal District, Karauli, who carries fish in violation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,
(in short 'the law') 1972. After registration of the case for the offense punishable under Section
51 of the Act, 1972, this jeep was caught together with fish. A.C.J.M. Karauli, in view of the
provisions of Sections 39 and 50 of the Law, 1972, ordered this to be delivered jeep to the
submitter under certain conditions, including the condition to provide a bank guarantee for a sum
of Rs. 40,000 / - vide disputed order. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that according to
subsection (3A) of section 50 of the law, 1972, vehicle can be given for custody in the execution
of a bond for the production of the same when necessary. According to learned council there is
no provision of the furniture bank Guarantee.

Judgment:

The accused is fined with 40 thousand rupees and his vehicle is returned.

Cases Referred:

Kela Ram v. State of Rajashtan

State of Karnataka v. K.Krishhnan

Comments:

The main goal of the law, 1972 is for the conservation and protection of wildlife, birds and
plants. Liberal approach in such cases with respect to the seized property, which is susceptible to
seizure not requested because it will probably frustrate the provisions of the law. The liberal
approach in such cases would perpetuate more violations related to wild animals etc.

Case Title: Mahendra Panwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: (C482) No. 283 of 2012

Provisions of Law:

Section 39 read with section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972

Brief Facts:

21 | P a g e
Three skins of leopards are recovered from the accused and charges are framed upon him.
On the other hand, counsel for the state learned that police officers of no less than rank of Sub
Inspector, are not authorized under Notification issued by the state government. It is further that
the same official who filed the fiche has now filed the criminal complaint the case, and the
magistrate has taken note of this complaint.

Judgement:

In the above circumstances, after considering the legal counsel of the petitioner, and learned
advice for the state, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, is thrown out summarily with the
direction that both things will be merged and the process will be carried out further the officer's
complaint, in the light of Article 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is further directed
that the trial court will continue the process as soon as possible, if it the petitioner is languishing
in prison. The copy of the order form of the trial shows that the scholar Magistrate has adjourned
and given the dates in a routine way. The district judge, Dehradun, will see that the process is not
unduly delayed. It is also noted that the petitioner will be free to take pleas for defense, including
legal pleadings before the court.

CHAPTER 3
Literature Review

 People, Wildlife and Wildlife Protection Act

22 | P a g e
 Author(s): Nalin Ranjan Jena
Citation: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, No. 42 (Oct. 15, 1994), pp. 2767-
2768.
This particular article deals with major interpretation of wildlife protection act, where it
even cover its shortcoming, one of which is. The major shortcoming of the legal
provisions for Sanctuaries and National Parks is that the act prescribes all sorts of
restrictions and prohibitions for the people, but does not deter the government from
acquiring any land within Sanctuaries and National Parks for other purposes.There are
numerous examples where the government has acquired land within the protected areas to
construct hydro-electric projects and roads, to set up factories and other kinds of state
enterprises and to do mining.
 Wildlife conservation and forestry: concerns and policy developments in India Author(s):
S. SHYAM SUNDER
Citation: The Commonwealth Forestry Review, Vol. 74, No. 1, SPECIAL ISSUE:
FORESTARY AND NATURE CONSERVATION (1995), pp. 35-40
The paper discusses the principal laws introduced to conserve the nature, laws which
have often had beneficial effects for the wildlife. It also deals with the National Action
Plan was formulated with the various objectives for the wildlife protection. The measures
were adopted by the forest departments to reduce the antagonism of the local population
was the provision to compensate for losses suffered by villagers due to wildlife. Suitable
compensation was a solace. This was next extended to the rest of the forests and
thereafter to damage to agriculture as also to injury or death of human beings.
 Forest biodiversity and its conservation in India
Author(s): J.S. SINGH and S.P.S. KUSHWAHA
Citation: The International Forestry Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, Special Issue: The Indian
Forest Sector - Current Trends and Future Challenges (2008), pp. 292-304
This particular article deals with enlarging the protected area network, optimizing its size
and rationalizing its boundaries, the need to develop conservation programmes at
landscape level. It also states that for the forest and species rich country like India,
assessment and conservation of biodiversity is of paramount importance.

23 | P a g e
 PENALITIES AND PUNISHMENTS

This particular chapter deals with the procedure involved with regard to punishments, the
evidence which is admissible, the process of investigation, the punishments and penalties .

 Offence of Hunting are dealt in the sections 9, 17A, and 2(16) 2) in the Act.
 Offences relating to Unauthorized Possession, Transport and Trade are dealt in Sections
40, 42, 43, 44, 48, 48A, and 49, and Chapter V-A in the Act
 Offences relating to Protected Areas/Habitat Destruction dealt in Sections 27, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33-A, 34, 35(6), 35(7), 35(8), 36-A(2), 36-C(2), and 38-V(2) in the Act.

Hunting

Hunting is given a wide definition in Section 2(16) to cover all demonstrations of killing,
harming, or catching a captive or wild creature.

Under Section 9, the hunting of every single wild animal (i.e., those recorded in Schedules I to
IV) is denied. Offences in connection to hunting or illegal trade fundamentally require the
prosecution to prove the illegal act that has been submitted by the accused so as to verify a
conviction.

In Rekhchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh26,

The Madhya Pradesh High Court was dealing with a criminal revision petition in which the
charged had been indicted for the wrongdoing of hunting a panther. The proof on record, in any
case, just indicated the way that a panther skin had been recovered from his ownership. While
releasing the indicted, the court held that: "Only by finding an individual possession of the a
leather of wild animal, it can't be assumed that he chased or executed the animal, particularly
without the proof that the leather was of a recently killed animal. The facts demonstrate that the
ownership of any animal article, without permit or making declaration to Chief Wild Life
Warden, is punishable u/s. 39 of the Act, yet, sadly, no charge for that offence was framed by the

26
2008 (4) MPHT 464

24 | P a g e
Trial Court, thus, as I would see it, it would not be simply and appropriate to remand the case for
fresh trial after around 12-13 years of the commission of the offence.

Protected areas

Sections 27 to 33-A, and Section 34 set out the acts and omissions which are offences in
connection to sanctuaries. Section 29 is a general provision disallowing devastation or harm to
wildlife or its habitat in sanctuaries. Section 35(6) is the corresponding provision for National
Parks. For any takeoff from Sections 29 or 35, a grant is required from the Chief Wild Life
Warden, which is just to be allowed after approval by the State Government. According to these
provisions, such grant is to be approved simply after the State Government has consulted with
the State Board for Wild Life (for sanctuaries) or the National Board for Wild Life (for National
Parks).

These provisions and the Supreme Courts orders on them have been used to prevent numerous
destructive activities happening inside and around protected regions.

In Satyapal Verma v. State of Jharkhand27, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the Chief Wild
Life Warden's order under Section 29 banning the movement of mineral stacked trucks through
Betla Wild Life Sanctuary.

In Kamla Kant Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others28, the Allahabad High Court
upheld the cancellation of a mining lease falling inside Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary.

Seizure, Confiscation, and Forfeiture of Property

Under Section 50(1)(c) of the Act, certain officers are given the power to seize things, either in
respect of which an offence has been committed, (for example, captive animals, animal articles
etc.), or which have been utilised for the commission of an offence, (for example, traps, tools,
vehicles, and so on.). According to Section 50(4) of the Act, such things seized are to be taken
forthwith before an magistrate to be dealt by law. Under Section 51(2) of the Act, while
convicting an individual for an offence under the Act, a court may order that any such item is
forfeited to the State Government.

27
2004 AIR (JHA) 69
28
2006 AIR (All) 92

25 | P a g e
In the recent case of Baburao v. State of Maharashtra and Others29, the Bombay High Court
was dealing with a petition claiming compensation for harm done to crops since the petitioner
was not able deal with his agricultural land because of the presence of tigers. While the High
Court appropriately held that the petitioner was qualified for pay, one of reason it gave for the
same was Section 39 of the Act. In the wake of citing Section 39, the Court observed that:
"Though the provision declares that the wild animals are Government property, with regards to
their protection from being hunted, we are of the view that the wild animals ought to be treated
as Government property for all reasons."

Possession and Trade of Protected Species

The regulatory regime for ownership and exchange of protected animal species can be summed
up as follows:

For species recorded in Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II (the "Strictly Protected Species") –
These perspectives are administered by Sections 40, 42, 43(1) and Chapter V-A of the Act.
Because of these provisions, no wild or captive animal(or animal article or trophy recorded in
Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II can be: a) had without a possession certificate under
Section 42; and b) transferred or procured using any and all means other than inheritance. The
only exceptions to this are the tail feather of the peacock, and hostage elephants. The extent of
the exemption for captive elephants is be that as it may, not clear.

In Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri and Others v. Union of India and Others30. By this writ
request, a association of captive elephant proprietors had challenged a ban on sale of captive
elephants. The Central Government for this situation had presented that it would amend the law
to permit the transfer or sale of captive elephants, and likewise, the court had not considered the
validity of the ban. No such amendment has since been passed, be that as it may.

29
Writ Petition No. 5764 of 2011
30
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 30959 of 2003)

26 | P a g e
In J.P. Samuel and Company v. Union of India31, the Madras High Court upheld a ban on
export of sea fans since they were clearly recorded in Schedule I of the Act and fell inside the
meanings of wild life and wild creature.

Section 44of the Act expresses that dealings in trophy and animal articles without license is
prohibited. It expresses that no shall except under in accordance with a license granted shall
commence or carry any business as a manufacturer of any animal article, as a dealer in trophy,
captive animal, or any meat, etc.

THE WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) LICENSING (ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR

CONSIDERATION) RULES, 1983

These rules deals with the additional matters for consideration for allow of permit under section
44 of the Act. For the purposes of granting a permit Chief Wildlife Warden have respect to the
following other matters, in particular the source and the way in which the provisions for the
business concerned would be acquired, number of licenses for the relevant business already in
existence in the area concerned, etc.

Investigation of Offences

Under Section 50(1) of the Act, certain Forest Officers and Police Officers are empowered to
enter, and look through any premises, vehicle or vessel without warrant, and may require any
individual to produce any animal, animal article etc, or any grant or other documentation
required by the Act. Where it appears that that an offence has been committed, such officer may
seize such animal, animal article, and so forth., together with any trap, tool, and so on., utilised
for committing such offence. Where the officer isn't satisfied that an individual will show up and
answer any charge that might be made against him, he may arrest such person without warrant.

In Tahawwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others32, a case concerning hunting under the Act,
the Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the newly
amended provisions of the CrPC relating to arrest.

31
2002 (141) ELT 338

27 | P a g e
Evidence in Wildlife Cases

Under Section 50(8) of the Act, the Assistant Director of Wildlife Preservation, and officers not
underneath the position of Assistant Conservator of Forests approved by the State Government
for this behalf are given powers similar to a court or tribunal for the purpose of investigation.
This incorporates the power to receive and record evidence. Under Section 50(9) of the Act, such
proof is admissible in any subsequent trial provided it has been taken in the presence of the
accused person.

In Forest Range Officer, Chungathara Ii Range v. Aboobacker and Another 33, the Kerala High
Court was dealing with a case of hunting and murdering a buffalo. The High Court overturned
the acquittal ordered by the Sessions Court. The trial Magistrate who sentenced the two
respondents under S. 51 of the Act sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for six months and
a fine of Rs. 500/- each being the minimum sentence recommended under the Act. The Sessions
Judge who set aside the conviction and sentence was disinclined to depend on the proof of the
prosecution and hence the acquittal.

Penalties

Section 51 of the Act sets out the penalties for the violation of any of its provisions. Penalties
vary depending on: a) the Schedule of the animal to which the offence relates; b) the area to
which the offence relates c) the nature of the offence and d) whether the accused has repeated the
offence.

 Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 states that in case any person has
committed an offence by breach of any of the conditions of license under the Act. Such
person shall be guilty of an offence and be convicted.

Penalty – Imprisonment for a term which may extend upto three years or with a fine
which, may extend to 25,000/- or with both.

 It also states that any act committed with regard to any animal listed in Schedule I or Part
II of Schedule II or any meat of any animal prescribed above, animal article, trophy

32
2012 INDLAW ALL 2730
33
1989 (95) CRLJ 2038

28 | P a g e
 derived from such animal, and also as already stated if the offence relates to hunting in
the National Parks or Sanctuaries, altering the border of sanctuary in a National Park is an
offence.

Penalty – Imprisonment for not less than three years which may extend to seven years and
fine not less than 10,000/-

 Any person if committed an offence against Section 38 which mainly deals with the
conversation of tiger shall be punished with six months of imprisonment and a fine which
may extend upto 2000/- or both and in case of second offence the term of imprisonment
may extend upto one year, or with fine which may extend upto 5000/-.
 And in case a person abets other person or he himself committed an act in relation to the
core area of the tiger reverse, hunting in tiger reserve, altering the boundaries of tiger
reserve, such person has committed an offence

Penalty:

First conviction – Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years which may
extend to seven years, and also with fine which shall not be less that 50,000/- and may extend
upto 2,00,000/-

Second subsequent conviction - Imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and also
with fine which shall not be less than 5,00,000/- and may extend upto 50,00,000

 For any person who has been convicted under this Act, the court trying the offence can
order to forfeit the traps, tools or any other instruments and the license held by him
which were used for the commission of the crime to the State Government.
 In case person who has been convicted under this Act, holds a license under the Arms
Act, 1959, the court may decide to cancel may decide to cancel his license and eligibility
under the above said act for the period of five years from the date of indictment.
 It also states that Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall not apply to the
person convicted under this act for the offence of hunting in National Parksor sanctuaries
unless and until the person is below 18 years of age.

29 | P a g e
CASE ANALYSIS

CASE I

Name of the case

Moti Lal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Citation
Appeal (crl.) 476 of 2002
Topic

Wild life Protection Act,1971

Chapter

This chapter deals with the procedure ,and the penalties involved in the act.

Provisions of law

The appellant, was arrested in connection with the offence punishable under Sections
9, 39(3), 44, 49, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Wild Life Act.

Facts of the case

When the Sales Department conducted a checking of truck, they found a bundle of cotton cloth
under which they found 50 skins of leopard, 3 skins of tiger, 5 skins of fox, which were being
transported from Delhi to Siliguri. Officer of the Forest Department seized the skin of the
animals under Section 50 of the Act. The driver and conductor of the truck were taken into
custody and FIR was lodged. According to the notification, Central government transferred the
case to Delhi Special Police Enforcement.

Issues Raised

The contentions which were raised in this case was:

Whether the Delhi Special Police Enforcement is empowered to investigate the case?

30 | P a g e
Judgement

Appeal is dismissed in this particular case in the Supreme Court.

Decision by the High Court

After the Central Government ordered on transferring the case to the Delhi Special Police
Establishment. The same was challenged before High Court requesting High Court to release the
appellant forthwith. High Court rejected the petition. Thus, the appeal was filed to Supreme
Court.

Cases Referred

 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(1996) 9 SCC 735]

Ratio Decidendi

In the present case, Section 50 of the Act makes it clear that the Police Officer is also entitled to
investigate offences. The court had stated that there is no substance in the issues raised by the
appellant. It cannot be said that the High Court was illegal or wrong in passing the order of
rejecting the petition.

Comments

Both the High Court and the Supreme Court have meticulously dealth with the provisions of
Indian Penal Code and CrPC and other special laws while giving the judgement and has a
judgement which in their opinion was the best.

CASE II
Name of the case
Yanner v Eaton
Citation

[1999] HCA 53

31 | P a g e
Topic

The case deals with the matter related to Fauna Conservation.

Chapter

It mainly deals with theFauna Conservation Act 1974 and the Native Title Act 1993.

Provisions of law

The provisions of the law involved in this case are s 54(1) of the Fauna Conservation Act 1974
and s 211(2) of the Native Title Act 1993.

Facts of the case –

The appellant killed two juvenile crocodiles in a waterway for the purpose of personal
consumption for himself as well as the member of the clan. The appellant killed the crocodiles
with the work. He is the member of Gunnamulla clan. The appellant was charged for taking the
fauna without license or other authority in contravention of Section 54(1) of the Fauna
Conservation Act, 1974.

Issues raised

Whether the term ‘property’ was determinative of whether the appellant’s native hunting rights
had been extinguished by the statute.

Judgement

In October 1999 the High Court upheld Yanner’s appeal from the Supreme Court’s decision.

Decision by the other courts

A magistrate sitting dismissed the charge on the basis that the appellant had been exercising a
native title right, and that a licence was not required by operation of s 211(2) of the Native Title
Act 1993’. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Queensland reversed the dismissal given my the
magistrate on the basis that any native title right to hunt crocodiles in Queensland has been
extinguished by operation of the Fauna Conservation Act which stated that ‘all fauna ... is the
property of the Crown and under the control of the Fauna Authority’.

32 | P a g e
Cases referred –

Murrandoo Yanner v Graeme Eaton (1999)

Toomer v Willson,[1948] USSC 105; 334 US

Murrandoo Yanner v Graeme Eaton (1999),

Wik Peoples v State of Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 96.

Ratio Decidendi –

The court in this case has clearly explained that the term property not only means to have a legal
ownership but also to have legal relationship such that the person has the right to exercise the
power over the property.

In the above stated case, whenever it referred to the term property, its wasn’t determined whether
the statute permitted full beneficial ownership over fauna to the crown. It had been stated that the
licensing rights and rules are not connected to native title rights. Hence, there right to hunt is not
extinguished.

CASE III

Name of the case

Renew Power Ventures Private Limited, represented by its General Manager, K. S. Vishwanath,
Delhi v State of Karnataka and another.

Citation

2018 Indlaw KAR 11936

Topic

Wild life Protection Act, 1972

Chapter

This particular case deals with the interpretation of Sec 9,39, and 51 of Wildlife Pretection
Act,1972

33 | P a g e
Provisions of law

The provisions of the law involved in this case are

Sec 9 – Hunting of animals is prohibited under this act and is a punishable offence

Sec 39 – States that an animal is a government property

Sec 51 – This section deals with the penalties for any offence committed under this act.

Facts of the case

The allegations made against the petitioner in the FIR is that a black buck had escaped from the
forest area and had entered into the factory premises of the petitioner and in the process it got
caught in the barbed wire fence which pierced into the neck of the deer leading to its death. The
petitioner is to be prosecuted for the offences under Section 9, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972.

Issues raised

The issues which was raised by the prosecution was that the deer being stuck in the wire fence of
the factory which caused its death cannot be constituted as an offence under the Wildlife
Protection Act, 1972.

Judgement

The petition filed by the prosecution seeking to quash FIR has been allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

It has been held that it is not a case which comes under the ambit of Section 9 of the Act. The
deer was stuck and entangled in the barbed wire fence and died of a cardiac arrest. Here there
were no allegation that the petitioner was intending or involved in hunting and killing the deer.
Material allegations made, do not prima facie make out the ingredients of Sections 9, 39 or 51 of
the Act.

34 | P a g e
Comments

The arguments of the prosecution have been taken into consideration by the court, an impartial
decision was taken based on the circumstances and facts of the case.

CHAPTER 4
LITERATURE REVIEW

1. “CHANGING TERRAIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSHIP IN INDIA'S

FORESTS”.34 BY Arpitha Kodiveri
The author of this Article helps in knowing the evolution of the wild life laws in India by stating
various laws like forest acts, biological acts e.t.c, he also gives a brief study of the articles and
explains them. And regarding the rights of the tribal people, whether the acts of them come under
the wildlife protection act.

2. “ANNIVERSARY EDITORIAL - A 'HEATED' DEBATE: THE WTO'S

CLIMATE QUESTION”.35 BY ALI AMERJEE & NAKUL NAYAK
The author takes into consideration of all the amendments made and helps the reader to extract
information by mentioning detailed explanation. And he categorizes study of the act to give an
easy approach to get what the act is prohibiting and promoting and the smuggling activities of a

34
12(2) Soc. L. Rev. 74 (2016)

35
6(1) TRADE L. & DEV. 1 (2014)

35 | P a g e
country where no concern for wildlife is given and the country where there are laws for the
conservation of the wildlife.

3. “THE JUDICIAL RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE RIGHT

TO ENVIRONMENT:DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES FROM NIGERIA AND
INDIA”.36 BY Rhuks Temitope
Author mentions the chronological order of the wildlife protection laws through time and
explains the series of events which led India to enact The Wildlife Protection Act in India. And
the acts in Nigeria and how these laws compare and the treaties significance in these countries.

36
3(4) NUJS L. Rev. 423 (2010)

36 | P a g e
 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

India is a party to major international conventions related to Wild Life conservation,

those are Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora
(CITES), International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and the
Convention on Migratory Species (CMS).

i. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora

(CITES):

In order to regulate international trade in endangered species of Wild Life, the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) was signed on March
1973.

The Government of India signed the Convention in July 1976, which was ratified in October
1976.The Director, Wild Life Preservation has been designated as the CITES Management
Authority for India. The enforcement of the provisions of CITES is carried out by the Regional
Deputy Directors, Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, who have also been designated as the
Assistant CITES Management Authority for India. An amendment to the Wild Life (Protection)
Act 1972 has been proposed for integrating the provisions of CITES in the national law for
effective implementation of the Convention. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has also
constituted a CITES Cell on 10th September 2010 to assist the Government of India in CITES
implementation. India has taken several initiatives in recent years at national level to build
capacity for better CITES implementation in the country.37

CITES is legally binding on the Parties – in other words they have to implement the
Convention – it does not take the place of national laws. Rather it provides a framework to be
respected by each Party, which has to adopt its own domestic legislation to ensure that CITES is
implemented at the national level.

The Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) is an Indian nature conservation organisation

to conserve wildlife and its habitat and to work for the welfare of individual wild animals. WTI

37
Ministry of Environmental affairs,http://www.moef.nic.in/division/international-conventions, (accessed on
1feb2019)

37 | P a g e
functions through partnerships and coalitions. Regional partners provide geographical oversight,
technical partners provide the expertise and skill that may be required in specific projects, and
international partners help in fund raising and global positioning.38

WTI’s programmes are supported by international organs such as

1. International Fund for Animal Welfare

2. United States Fish and Wildlife service
3. World animal Protection
4. British high Commission.

At the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN) General Assembly meeting in Delhi in 1969, serious concern was raised about threats
to several Wildlife creatures India. In 1970, a national ban on tiger hunting was imposed, and in
1972 the Wildlife Protection Act came into force. In other words IUCN maybe the reason for
India having a special law on Wild life protection. The framework of rules and regulations was
then set up to formulate a project for tiger conservation with an ecological approach. Project
Tiger, started in 1972, is a major effort to conserve the tiger and its habitats. This was the first
initiative taken on wildlife by India.

According to its own website, IUCN is the only international observer organization in the
UN General Assembly with expertise in issues concerning the environment, specifically
biodiversity, nature conservation and sustainable natural resource use. This means it is a
conveyance agency and it is not an agency which imposes sanctions and so this means that India
will not be binding on the directions given by IUCN.39

CITES directs its efforts at the supply side of wildlife smuggling. It aims to end wildlife
smuggling and to ensure that international trade does not threaten endangered species.

38
Wildlife trust of India,https://www.wti.org.in/about-wti/(accessed on 1feb2019)
39
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, https://www.iucn.org/about,
(accessed on 5feb2019)

38 | P a g e
 In the case of Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others v Union of India and
Others,40 some people filed a writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of 1991
amendment of the Wildlife protection act, it consisted a clause that mentioned ivory imports, and
extraction are punishable offence, then Supreme Court of India said that CITES was formulated
to protect the wildlife as a whole, to protect environment, ecology the Govt. of India has signed
the treaty along with other countries, so in order to give effect to the treaty The Parliament of
India had given the Amendment act 1991.

In the case of Marine Fins, represented by its Proprietrix, Fathima Beevi T. A, Kochi
v Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry Of Commerce and Industry, New
Delhi and others41, Central Government, through a notification, banned the export of shark fins.
Internationally too, "shark finning" is a detestable fishing activity, leading to environmental and
ecological calamities. The Government first imposed this ban in 2001, relaxed it the same year.
But, again, in 2015, re-imposed it. Then one marine produce exporter challenged this because it
is ultra-vires and said that parliament doesn’t have powers as per International Parameters to
impose this restriction, and the restriction was also imposed on a species of shark which Wildlife
Protection Act didn’t mention it, then Kerala H.C said that even though it is not mentioned in act,
CITES was signed by India to give protection to endangered species of animals, so the Wildlife
act was enacted in the interest of CITES, so this International Convention has cited 480 species
of sharks as endangered species, and the prohibition is laid on all of them, so the Ban is valid

In the case of Mohammad Sharif S/o Husainam and another v State of Karnataka42,
a case of Redsandal wood smuggling, the H.C of Karnataka said these species are not found in
anywhere in the world, in India and we owe an obligation to the world, to safeguard this
endangered species. And also observed that CITES and IUCN has listed this species as
endangered.

40
2003 Indlaw SC 721

41
2018 Indlaw KER 1998

42
2015 Indlaw KAR 5999

39 | P a g e
 When observed under most of the cases cited, CITES was taken as a reference, it was
given preference and it was also used in making of laws relating to wildlife, I think this is
happening because, it is the foundation for many countries to enact laws relating to wild life.

40 | P a g e
 CASE ANALYSIS

1. “A. Iyappan v Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority
and the Secretary to Government, Department of Environment and Forest
Secretariat, Chennai and others”.43
Topic : wildlife Protection

Subject : Conservation

Brief Facts : There was a proposal to construct a marine coastal police station due to rising
tensions in extension of the olive ridley turtles as IUCN has warned, but in constructing the
structure it is causing obstruction to the livelihood of the fishermen who used to dry fish and
fishing nets in that place.

Question of Law involved : Whether the law provides importance to the people who are using
the land for daily activities for occupation or it promotes the use of it to protect endangered
species of animals.

Judgement : The place was left out and the police station construction was moved to another
place and was given to the fishermen.

Ratio decidendi : There was no report as to the habitat of olive ridley turtles in that area, the
action of setting up a police station was from a programme initiated by the govt so to support the
endangered species, since there is no report of habitat, and the place was used by fishermen for
various festivals, and other occupational activities, it was left out.

Critical Analysis : In this case I analysed that Court gave importance to the endangered wildlife
because, the main reason for the transfer of the police station was because there was no report of
olive ridley turtles habitat there, if there was one, it would have given the place for the
construction.

43
2017 Indlaw NGT 104

41 | P a g e
 2. “In Re : Protection of Forest Environment, Ecology, Wild Life Etc. v Union of India
and others”.44
Title : Elephants Preservation Act 1879

Chapter : Conservation, Afforestation.

Brief Facts : A Judicial notice was taken for frequent occurence of forest fires and preventive
measures were notified and a person who was living in the forest took those measures seriously
and started implementing them and started educating the people with him and one day he filed a
petition for the relief to be given by the state govt. as he helped the govt.

Judgement: he shall not be given any relief

Ratio decidendi : Here the H.C of Uttarakhand said that every person owes a moral
responsibility to safeguard the wildlife so that the ecological system will be balanced and further
there was no notification by the order in providing any relief to the people.

Critical Analysis : The court cited the exact terms said by CITES in in their framework, this
shows that court has been following International treaties intent to protect the wildlife.

3. “Abdulkadar Mohamad Azam Sheikh v State of Gujarat”.45

Topic : Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

Subject : Prevention of Atrocities on Animal Act

Brief facts : In this case the accused was a exotic bird smuggler, he was apprehended in a port
where he was in possession of 50 birds stuffed into bottles with feathers and tails cutoff.

Judgement and order : it was given that the birds were to be set free in aviary owned by Beauty
without brutality organisation and the organisation was also awarded 1lakh to take care of the

44
2016 Indlaw UTT 633

45
2011 Indlaw GUJ 493

42 | P a g e
birds, who were given possession by an amendment at first which were ordered to set free inspite
of possession claimed by the accused, he was convicted.

Ratio Decidendi : The court took WTI’s guidelines in giving possession of the birds to an
organisation as setting of the birds free could be dangerous and tamper the essence of the wildlife
protection act.

Critical analysis : The court in order to prevent cruelty to animals, it made the accused liable
and by making him as an example and further by saving animals freedom from cruelty.

43 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS

The passing of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 as a unified piece of legislation is the most
historic and remarkable event in the field of wildlife conservation. The Act has provisions for
setting up Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks for the complete protection, conservation and
management of wildlife.

India has been protecting wildlife with the wildlife protection act 1972, but we feel like the act or
the courts are biased only towards the wildlife animals which are endangered and there is no
protection for the animals which live in the city with the human beings.

There has been no good approach to the problem of conservation of wildlife, the reason being,
law making authorities or research teams wait till the species are going extinct and then publish a
notification of conserve the species, if the action was taken otherwise, like not to harm any
animals even when they are not in a verge of extinction, by this there will be no way that the
animal is going to be extinct because they are protected from the beginning, just like humans,
we feel that humans will not go extinct because of this reason.

44 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES

1. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources -

https://www.iucn.org/about
2. Ministry of Environmental affairs - http://www.moef.nic.in/division/international-
conventions,
3. Wildlife trust of India - https://www.wti.org.in/about-wti/

ARTICLES

1. Sanjay Upadhyay, Videh Upadhyay, Forest Laws, Wildlife Laws and the Environment (2002),
p 229
2. S. N. Dhyani, Wildlife management: Wildlife Protection Legislation, (1994)

3. Divan and Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India(2001)

4. Samir Sinha, 2009 Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC India, WWF-
India, Natraj Publishers

45 | P a g e