The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: An Overview with Case Laws

The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is a landmark legislation enacted by the Indian Parliament to safeguard the wildlife of India, ensuring ecological and environmental security. This act is pivotal in conserving various species of animals, birds, and plants, establishing protected areas, regulating hunting, and controlling trade in wildlife and its derivatives. Over the years, the act has been instrumental in addressing the challenges posed by poaching, habitat destruction, and human-wildlife conflicts.

Objectives of the Act

The primary objectives of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, are:

1. Protection of Wild Animals, Birds, and Plants: To safeguard wild animals, birds, and plants to ensure India’s ecological and environmental security.
2. Regulation and Control of Hunting: To regulate hunting and poaching activities to prevent the decline of wildlife populations.
3. Management of Wildlife Habitats: To ensure the management and development of wildlife habitats to promote biodiversity.
4. Conservation of Endangered Species: To conserve endangered and threatened species of flora and fauna.
5. Regulation of Trade in Wildlife: To control trade and commerce in wildlife, animal products, and trophies, preventing illegal wildlife trade.

Key Provisions

1. Protected Areas

Protected areas are crucial for the conservation of wildlife. The act provides for the establishment of different categories of protected areas:

• Sanctuaries (Section 18): Sanctuaries are areas declared for the protection of wild animals, where activities like hunting and grazing are prohibited except under certain conditions.
• Case Law: State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan (1989): The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of individuals for hunting in a sanctuary, reinforcing the protection of wildlife sanctuaries under the Act.
• National Parks (Section 35): National parks are areas designated for the conservation of wildlife, where more stringent protection measures are enforced compared to sanctuaries. No human activities are allowed except for tourism and scientific research.
• Case Law: Tarun Bharat Sangh vs. Union of India (1991): The Supreme Court ordered the closure of mining activities in and around the Sariska National Park to protect the environment and wildlife.
• Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves (Sections 36A and 36C): These are areas where the community has a stake in the management and protection of the wildlife and its habitat.
• Case Law: Ajay Dubey vs. National Tiger Conservation Authority (2012): The Supreme Court directed states to declare buffer zones around tiger reserves to ensure better conservation efforts.

2. Regulation of Hunting (Sections 9 to 12)

Hunting regulations are critical to preventing the decline of wildlife populations:

• Section 9: Prohibits hunting of any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III, and IV of the Act.
• Case Law: Akhil Bharatiya Jeev Raksha Bishnoi Sabha vs. State of Rajasthan (2017): The Rajasthan High Court upheld the strict prohibition on hunting, emphasizing the need to protect endangered species.
• Section 11: Allows hunting of wild animals under special circumstances such as self-defense or protection of human life or property.
• Case Law: M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India (2010): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the killing of dangerous animals, ensuring it is done as a last resort.
• Section 12: Permits hunting for education, scientific research, and scientific management.
• Case Law: Centre for Environmental Law WWF vs. Union of India (2013): The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of scientific management in wildlife conservation.

3. Protection of Specified Plants (Sections 17A to 17H)

These sections prohibit picking, uprooting, damaging, destroying, acquiring, or possessing specified plants from the protected areas, ensuring their conservation.

4. Trade and Commerce in Wild Animals, Animal Articles, and Trophies (Sections 39 to 49)

Regulating trade in wildlife is essential to curb illegal activities:

• Section 39: States that wild animals specified in Schedules I and II, and their parts and products, are government property.
• Case Law: S. K. Mondal vs. State of West Bengal (2011): The Calcutta High Court ruled that wildlife and its derivatives belong to the state, reinforcing the government’s role in controlling wildlife trade.
• Section 43: Regulates the transfer of captive animals and prohibits trade in them.
• Sections 44 to 49: Control and regulate trade and commerce in wildlife and their derivatives, ensuring that only licensed dealers operate.
• Case Law: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs. Union of India (1995): The Supreme Court banned the trade in ivory and ivory products, aiming to curb poaching and illegal trade.

5. Penalties and Offences (Sections 51 to 58)

The act specifies stringent penalties for violations to deter wildlife crimes:

• Section 51: Specifies the penalties for contravening any provision of the act, including imprisonment up to seven years and fines.
• Case Law: Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2016): The Supreme Court imposed stringent penalties for wildlife crimes, emphasizing the importance of strict enforcement.
• Section 52: Details the punishment for abetment of offenses under the act.
• Section 54: Provides for the forfeiture of property derived from illegal wildlife trade.
• Case Law: State of Maharashtra vs. Gajanan Krishna Bapat (1995): The Bombay High Court upheld the forfeiture of property acquired through illegal wildlife trade.

6. Authorities and Officers

The act designates specific authorities for its implementation:

• Director of Wildlife Preservation (Section 3): The central authority responsible for the implementation of the act.
• Chief Wildlife Warden (Section 4): State-level authority responsible for implementing the provisions of the act in the state.
• Wildlife Wardens (Section 4): Officers appointed to assist the Chief Wildlife Warden.

Schedules

The act includes six schedules that provide varying degrees of protection to different species:

• Schedule I: Absolute protection to endangered species; offenses related to these species attract the highest penalties.
• Case Law: State of Karnataka vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004): The Supreme Court upheld the protection of species listed in Schedule I, emphasizing severe penalties for violations.
• Schedule II: High protection but lower than Schedule I; includes species that are not critically endangered but need protection.
• Case Law: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Lalit Tandon (2003): The Allahabad High Court reinforced the protection measures for species under Schedule II.
• Schedule III and IV: Species that are protected but the penalties for offenses are lower.
• Schedule V: Animals classified as vermin, which can be hunted.
• Schedule VI: Specifies plants that are protected under the act.

Amendments and Updates

The act has been amended several times to strengthen wildlife conservation measures:

• 2002 Amendment: Introduced stricter penalties and created the National Board for Wildlife for overall policy framework and coordination.
• 2006 Amendment: Established the National Tiger Conservation Authority and provided for the constitution of Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau.
• Case Law: Prerna Singh Bindra vs. Union of India (2011): The Supreme Court upheld the creation of the National Tiger Conservation Authority, emphasizing its role in tiger conservation.
• 2013 Amendment: Focused on stronger measures to combat poaching and illegal trade of wildlife.

Implementation and Challenges

Implementation: The act is implemented by central and state governments through designated wildlife authorities and officers. Various agencies, including forest departments, wildlife conservation organizations, and law enforcement, work together to enforce the provisions of the act.

Challenges:

• Poaching and Illegal Trade: Despite stringent laws, poaching and illegal trade in wildlife continue to pose significant challenges.
• Case Law: Sansar Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (2010): The Supreme Court highlighted the ongoing issue of poaching and the need for stricter enforcement of wildlife protection laws.
• Human-Wildlife Conflict: Increasing human encroachment into wildlife habitats has led to conflicts, resulting in damage to property, livestock, and sometimes loss of human lives.
• Case Law: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (1997): The Supreme Court addressed the issue of human-wildlife conflict, stressing the need for creating buffer zones and minimizing human intrusion into wildlife habitats.
• Habitat Destruction: Deforestation, industrialization, and urbanization are leading to habitat loss, threatening wildlife conservation efforts.
• Case Law: Orissa Mining Corporation vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest (2013): The Supreme Court halted mining activities in a wildlife-rich area, emphasizing the importance of habitat protection.
• Insufficient Resources: Lack of adequate resources and trained personnel hampers effective implementation and enforcement of the act.
• Case Law: Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2011): The Supreme Court underscored the need for better resource allocation and training for wildlife protection personnel.

Conclusion

The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is a critical legislative framework aimed

at conserving India’s rich biodiversity. By establishing protected areas, regulating hunting, and controlling trade in wildlife, the act provides comprehensive measures for wildlife protection. However, effective implementation, enhanced resources, and addressing emerging challenges are crucial to achieving the objectives of the act and ensuring sustainable conservation efforts. The judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the act, ensuring that wildlife conservation remains a priority.