WILDLIFE PROTECTION LAWS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION AFTER 50

YEARS

“THE GREATNESS OF A NATION AND ITS MORAL PROGRESS CAN BE JUDGED BY THE WAY
ITS ANIMALS ARE TREATED”

-Mahatma Gandhi.

ABSTRACT

Since long back in history, the mankind has made constant efforts to preserve the wildlife and
the nature. The vedas also talk about the protection of wildlife, for instance Atharveda
highlights the importance of reserving the wildlife and the environment. The period of
Ashoka saw the creation of offices for enforcement of norms relating to preservance of
wildlife. On the same lines, various regulations were enacted in British Era for the protection
of wildlife and today, we have Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 for the same purpose. In this
paper, the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 has been scrutinized in consonance with the
Constitutional Provisions and the two important threats to the Wildlife has also been
discussed i.e., Wildlife Trade and Declaration as Vermin.

Keywords: Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Wildlife Trade, Vermin.

INTRODUCTION

Our country has a long history of conservation of Wildlife and the Environment, with
codified regulations dating back to Asoka’s stone edicts in the 3rd century B.C., when he put
down guidelines for elephant preservation. Conservation priorities have shifted through time
in response to shifting human needs, cultural, social, and political standards.1

As a result, wildlife enforcement in India has evolved, with the most significant
developments coming in recent years. India, being one of the world’s most diversified
countries, is a major player in the international wildlife trade, which encompasses all types of
wild animals. Wildlife commerce include a wide range of medicinal plants, marine items, and
other lesser-known kinds of wildlife, in addition to iconic and flagship species.

In India, the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 serves as the overarching legislation for
wildlife protection. India was also one of the first countries to join the Convention on

1
Dev Tejnani, 15 Landmark Judgement of Indian Judiciary on Animal Rights, LEGAL DESIRE (June 11, 2021,
9:29 PM), https://legaldesire.com/15-landmark-judgement-of-indian-judiciary-on-animal-rights/.
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). 2

The term “wild life” refers to plants, animals, insects, and other organisms that are often
found in forests. Long ago, India attempted to safeguard wildlife by establishing the Indian
Forest Act, 1927, which established hunting limitations in protected and restricted forests.
Before then, the British had created the Wild Birds Protection Act of 1887 to safeguard wild
birds. The Indian Constitution’s Article 51-A (g) puts a basic obligation on every Indian
citizen to maintain and develop the country’s wildlife.3

WHAT IS WILDLIFE?

Wildlife is defined as any animal, aquatic or terrestrial plant that is a component of any
environment, according to the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 (Section 2 (37). As a result,
the term wildlife essentially embraces all types of life found in the wild in nature, whether
plant or animal. Marine, freshwater, and coastal environments would all be included.

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

It is a constitutional responsibility to conserve animals and enhance the environment. It is a

commitment for a country devoted to welfare state ideals. Under the chapters of Directive
Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties, the Indian Constitution has explicit
provisions for environmental preservation.4 In recent years, judicial activism has highlighted
the lack of a particular provision in the Constitution recognising the basic right to a clean and
healthy environment.

Initially, there was no formal provision for environmental protection in the Indian
Constitution. In 1976, the Indian government enacted the 42nd Amendment to the
Constitution, which was driven by global environmental consciousness in the 1970s, the
“Stockholm Conference”‘, and growing wakefulness of the ecological catastrophe. The
Constitution was changed to include explicit measures for environmental preservation.
“Article 48-A” was added to the “Directive Principles of State Policy” by the 42nd
Amendment.5

2
Samir Sinha, Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC INDIA- WWF-INDIA, (June 11, 2021,
9:29 PM), https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/6284/handbook-wildlife-law-enforcement-india.pdf.
3
Supra 01.
4
Constitutional Provisions for the protection of Environment with relevant Case Laws, 04,
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf.
5
Samir Sinha, Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC INDIA- WWF-INDIA, (June 11, 2021,
9:29 PM), https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/6284/handbook-wildlife-law-enforcement-india.pdf.
Article 48(A)

Protecting and improving the environment, as well as defending the country’s forests and
wild life, as stated in Section 48A: “The state should seek to protect and enhance the
environment, as well as safeguard the country’s forests and wild life.”

Citizens of the country have a basic right to a healthy, clean, and acceptable environment.
Article 48A of the Indian Constitution states that the state has a constitutional commitment to
maintain and develop the environment, as well as to maintain the country’s forests and wild
species.6

Article49-A

The Article shapes:

“The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wildlife of the country.” The said improvement levied a duty on every single
resident in the practice of “Fundamental Duty.”

Article 51-A, Clause (g)

“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.” says
“‘Article 51-A (g)”, which pacts with citizens’ fundamental duties. As a result, the
government “(Article 48-A)” and every person “(Article 51-A (g))” have a responsibility to
maintain and develop the natural environment.

In “T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors”.,, a three-judge bench of this
Court held, citing “Articles 48-A and 51-A” combined as setting the basis for an
environmental jurisprudence that “Today, the State and citizens are under a fundamental
obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life,
and to have compassion for living creatures,”7

In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab 8, the Supreme Court noted the contexts
in which Article 51(a) appears and stated that one of the objectives sought to be achieved by
the Parliament by endorsing “clause (g) in Article 51-A” and elevating it to the position of a
fundamental duty is to safeguard that the essence and communication of “Articles 48 and

6
Sher Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh, 2014.
7
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606.
8
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab, (2005) 8 SCC 534.
48A” are honoured as a “fundamental duty of every citizen.” The Constitution (Forty-second
Amendment) Act of 1976 gave the Parliament the chance to advance the expression of the
goals in “Articles 48 and 48-A.”

While “Article 48-A” refers to the “environment,” “Article 51-A(g)” refers to “the natural
environment,” which comprises “forests, lakes, rivers, and wild life.” While “Article 48”
expressly mentions “cows and calves and other milch and draught livestock,” “Article 51-A
(g)” declares it a basic obligation of each inhabitant “to feel compassion for living beings,”
which includes the animals mentioned in Article 48.9

SCRUTINIZING THE WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972

Poaching and the trafficking in animal products have put India’s wildlife in jeopardy in recent
years. To protect the country’s wildlife, India’s parliament passed the “Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972”, founded on a resolution passed by the legislatures of 11 states, entreating “Article
252 of the Constitution”, which allows Parliament to permit a common commandment for
two or more states requesting it through a resolution of the State Legislature.

The law originally only applied to state governments whose legislatures approved the
necessary “resolution under Article 252 of the Constitution”, but it was later prolonged to all
states through the “Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act 1991”, which was passed after the
subject was added to the Concurrent List.10

Some wild creatures and birds had already become extinct, while others were on the edge of
extinction, necessitating the Act. Furthermore, current state laws was deemed insufficient to
safeguard the country’s wildlife at the time. The Act establishes Wildlife Advisory Boards
and the employment of wildlife wardens and other officials to carry out the Act’s provisions.
In a few states, the Chief Wild Life Warden and the Chief Conservator of Forests are
combined into one position. Hunting of animals classified in Schedules I, II, III, and IV is
prohibited under the Act. The state government can proclaim any place of sufficient
ecological, faunal, floral, natural, or zoological significance as a sanctuary or national park
under the Act. Public access is limited in both national parks and sanctuaries, and the damage
of any animal or habitat is forbidden.11

9
Ibid.
10
Samir Sinha, Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC INDIA- WWF-INDIA, (June 11,
2021, 9:29 PM), https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/6284/handbook-wildlife-law-enforcement-india.pdf.
11
Vijay Oak, Wild life Protection: Legislative and Judicial Response, LEGAL SERVICES INDIA, (June 11, 2021,
9:29 PM), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wild.htm.
The workings of the 1972 Act, however, were not sufficient, and the Act was appropriately
revised in 1986. Within the country, trade and commerce in wild animals, animal goods, and
trophies were permitted under the 1972 Act. However, numerous traffickers transported
animal skins, animal products, and trophies to other nations in order to earn handsomely. As a
result, it became necessary to outlaw the trade in some wild animals. 12 As a result, under the
1986 Amendment Act, no one will be permitted to deal in wild species included in Schedules
I and II of the Act.

In addition, permits for the internal trade of animals and animal products that were in place at
the time were cancelled. A comprehensive prohibition on the trade in Indian ivory was also
implemented.13

The Wild Life Act was revised again in 1991. On the advice of the Indian Wildlife Board and
the Ministry of Environment and Forests, this adjustment was adopted. The wildlife
population in India was thought to be quickly declining as a result of ongoing poaching and
illegal trafficking in animal products. As a result, save for vermin, hunting of all wild animals
was forbidden by the 1991 Amendment Act.14

Hunting of wild animals was authorised in certain exceptional circumstances, such as for the
protection of life and property, teaching, research, scientific management, and captive
breeding. In order to reduce the number of animals dying from infectious illnesses,
mandatory vaccinations was implemented in national parks and sanctuaries. The national
park and sanctuary regulations were extended to territorial seas without having a significant
impact on local fishermen’s interests.15 It was also stipulated that no land may be designated
as a national park or a sanctuary without first resolving indigenous people’s rights.

The 1991 Amendment Act acknowledged the importance of zoos in the conservation of wild
animals in the country and specified that zoo administration would be overseen by the Central
Zoo Authority formed by the Amendment Act. Collection of endangered animals and plants
is also illegal by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

12
Ibid.
13
Samir Sinha, Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC INDIA- WWF-INDIA, (June 11,
2021, 9:29 PM), https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/6284/handbook-wildlife-law-enforcement-india.pdf.
14
Constitutional Provisions for the protection of Environment with relevant Case Laws, 04,
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf.
15
Ibid.
and Flora (CITES). However, it will have no impact on tribals’ ability to acquire historically
utilised plants for legitimate personal use.16

The Wild Life Act was changed again in 2002 (Act no. 16 of 2003) to make significant
changes to the governance system, including:17

 Tying the legislation (through the lengthy title) to the country’s ecological and
environmental security;
 Creating a National Board for Wild Life led by the Prime Minister (replacing a non-
statutory Indian Board for Wildlife) and a Standing Committee of the Board led by
the Minister in Charge of Forest and Wild Life (sections 5A and B of the main Act);
 Creating a State Board for Wild Life, led by the Chief Minister, to replace the State
Wild Life Advisory Board (replacement section 6 of the main Act);
 Adding a proviso to section 33 of the main Act requiring “prior approval” by the
National Board before the State Government may authorize certain operations in
sanctuaries and reserves;
 Requiring the National Board to make a proposal and, in some situations, consultation
(As modified, sections 35(5) and (6) of the main Act).

It should be celebrated that the Supreme Court, in Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v.
Union of India & Others 18, ordered that no approval for the devastation, mistreatment, or
elimination of any wildlife (counting forest harvest) from a nature preserve under “Section 29
of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972”, should be decided deprived of the endorsement of the
Standing Committee of Indian Wildlife.19 Subsequent to that, the Government revised the
Wild “Life (Protection) Act 1972 with Act 16 of 2003”, which gave the Board and its
Committee official standing, among other things.

KEY AGENCIES CONTRIBUTING TO WILDLIFE CRIME ENFORCEMENT

The following are the primary agencies that contribute to wildlife enforcement in India, as
well as their general roles:20

16
Vijay Oak, Wild life Protection: Legislative and Judicial Response, LEGAL SERVICES INDIA, (June 11, 2021,
9:29 PM), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wild.htm.
17
Wildlife Amendment Act 2002.
18
Centre for Envir. Law, WWF-I v. UOI & Ors, (2013) 11 SCC 630
19
S Vijay Kumar and Nidhi Srivastava, Restructuring the Environmental Governance Architecture for India,
THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE DISCUSSION PAPER 1, 9 (2017),
https://www.teriin.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/Environmental%20Governance.pdf
20
Samir Sinha, Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC INDIA- WWF-INDIA, (June 11,
2021, 9:29 PM), https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/6284/handbook-wildlife-law-enforcement-india.pdf.
1. Directorate of Wildlife Preservation, Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India: CITES Management Authority; focuses on wildlife policy and
law at the national level.
2. Wildlife Crime Control Bureau: Wildlife crime enforcement and regulation is the
responsibility of a newly constituted federal agency with multi-agency representation.
3. State Forest Departments: Within their respective states, they are in charge of forest
and animal resource management and enforcement.
4. State Police Departments: Within each state, law enforcement and criminal
investigations are conducted.
5. Central Bureau of Investigation: In India, it is the main agency for Interpol and is
responsible for criminal investigations.
6. Indian Customs: A government institution in charge of regulating cross-border trade.
7. Department of Revenue Intelligence: A federal agency tasked with gathering
intelligence on smuggling of illegal products, drugs, under-invoicing, over-invoicing,
and other issues from domestic and international sources, as well as analysing and
disseminating such information to field formations for action.
8. Indian Army: It is located along distant border areas and aids in the monitoring of
trans-border operations.
9. Paramilitary including Coast Guard, ITBP, SSB, BSF, CISF etc.: It monitors
trans-border operations at all international borders, airports, seaports, and other
locations.
10. Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India: A leading federal forensics agency that provides specialist assistance to law
enforcement authorities.
11. State Forensic Directorates: State agencies are assisting state law enforcement
authorities with forensics.
12. Director, Wildlife Institute of India (WII): CITES Scientific Authority; WII is a
leading independent institution that supports wildlife management and enforcement
research and training. It also features a modern forensics centre for animals.
13. Director, Zoological Survey of India: CITES Scientific Authority
14. Director, Botanical Survey of India: CITES Scientific Authority
15. Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute: CITES Scientific Authority
WILDLIFE TRADE

The selling and exchange of animal and plant resources is referred to as “wildlife trade.” This
includes decorative animal items like corals for aquariums, reptile skins for leather, tortoise
shell, and ornamental plants like orchids and cacti, as well as decorative plants like orchids
and cactus. It also includes lumber, medicinal and aromatic items like taxol, agarwood, and
musk, as well as fishery goods and live animals for the pet trade, such as parrots, raptors,
monkeys, reptiles, and ornamental fish.21 While the phrase “wildlife trade” is not defined
under India’s Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Chapter V of the Act deals with the trade or
commerce in wild animals, animal goods, and trophies.

“Trade” means export, re-export, import, and introduction from the sea, according to Article
1 (c) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES), which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 3 March 1973 and revised in Bonn
on 22 June 1979. Hundreds of millions of individual plants and animals from tens of
thousands of species are traded in the wildlife trade.22 Wildlife commerce is varied, ranging
from live animals and plants to a wide range of wildlife-derived items such as food, unusual
leather items, wooden musical instruments, lumber, tourist curios, fish, other food items, and
pharmaceuticals.23 Although most wildlife trading occurs within national boundaries, there is
a significant volume of wildlife traded worldwide. Many types of wildlife trade are lawful,
but a large portion of it is unlawful and in violation of international and national norms and
laws.

Nature of Trade

The key driving element for wildlife traffickers is profit, which can range from efforts to
ensure basic survival and daily livelihoods to large-scale local revenue generating, such as
marine fisheries and logging firms. Any number of middlemen may be involved in the
wildlife trade between collectors of wildlife and the ultimate users, including specialists in
storage, handling, transportation, taxidermy and preservation, manufacturing, processing and
extraction, industrial production, marketing, and the export and retail businesses.

21
The Illegal Wildlife Trade in Southeast Asia : Institutional Capacities in Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and
Vietnam, OECD, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5704764f-en/index.html?
itemId=/content/component/5704764f-en.
22
Ibid.
23
Samir Sinha, Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC INDIA- WWF-INDIA, (June 11,
2021, 9:29 PM), https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/6284/handbook-wildlife-law-enforcement-india.pdf.
In truth, most of us are involved in the wildlife trade in some capacity, even if only as end
users of flora and fauna goods.24

Wildlife trade has traditionally played an important role in the livelihoods of a significant
number of people in India, particularly tribals. The survival of communities living in forest
regions has been reliant on natural resources. To support their household needs, they have
engaged in forest products exchange, either for cash or on a barter system.

However, such commerce was mainly sustainable and had little influence on plant and animal
species’ survival. This situation has recently altered. 25 The need among persons participating
in the trade has been commercialised and, when illegal, has grown into a well-organized
clandestine enterprise, driven by an overall human population expansion and accompanying
consumer demand, including “modernised” collecting, harvesting, and transportation means.
Harvesters, collectors, and poachers, who typically live in remote locations without direct
26
access to distribution lines, are at the heart of the operation. They rely on out-of-town
buyers to sell their wares.

Furthermore, a well-organized nexus for transporting and marketing illicit animal items is
maintained by multiple intermediaries. A significant portion of this commerce is destined for
the overseas market, with no direct demand in India. Tiger, otter, and leopard skins are used
to construct Tibetan chubas (traditional robes); Tiger, Rhino, and Musk Deer body parts and
derivatives are utilised in traditional Chinese remedies; and rhino horns are used to construct
dagger handles in nations such as Yemen.27

What is illegal wildlife trade?

In basic words, illegal wildlife trading refers to the sale or exchange of wild animals or plant
resources that are illegal to sell. Live or dead animals or plants, as well as their derivatives,
may be involved.28 The commerce might be in pet or horticultural items, or in wild animal
and plant items such as skins, medicinal components, tourist curios, wood, wild meat, and
other human-demanded foods.

Why is illegal wildlife trade a problem?

24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Samir Sinha, Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC INDIA- WWF-INDIA, (June 11,
2021, 9:29 PM), https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/6284/handbook-wildlife-law-enforcement-india.pdf.
28
Ibid.
In many situations, illicit wildlife trading has resulted in over-exploitation of the targeted
species, to the point that the species’ very survival is in jeopardy. In the cases of tigers,
rhinos, elephants, Star Tortoises, and other animals, this element has received a lot of
attention. Many freshwater and marine species, including otters, freshwater and marine
turtles, corals, sharks, tuna, and other sea fish, have suffered as a result of overharvesting for
commerce.29 In addition, illicit wildlife trading endangers the lives of a substantial portion of
our human population who rely on wildlife goods from forest and coastal biomes to survive.
These people rely on wild resources not just for food, but also for their livelihood and
medical treatment. As a result, it’s critical that these animal resources are maintained
properly and legally protected.30

Wildlife trafficking is related to violence, corruption, fraud, smuggling, conspiracy, robbery,

health violations, drug trafficking, and weapons trafficking, according to William Clark, head
of the Interpol Working Group on Wildlife Crime. There’s also a lot of money laundering and
tax evasion going on.31

It’s not only about preserving creatures from extinction when it comes to combating illegal
wildlife trade. It also involves encouraging economic development, the rule of law, and
public health protection. Some illnesses, such as avian influenza, SARS, the Ebola virus, and
TB, can spread from animals to people through the illegal wildlife trade, especially when
those creatures are removed from the wild and transported in commerce.32

Is all trade in wild species illegal in India?

In India, it is unlawful to sell wild animals, plants, and their derivatives from species listed in
Schedules I through IV and Schedule VI of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. This Act
protects certain animals against exploitation such as hunting, trading, and other forms of
exploitation.

Since 1976, India has been a signatory to CITES, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES protects about 5000 animal species and
28000 plant species from overexploitation through international trade. Plants, plant parts,

29
Sanam Naz and Mubashar Hussain, Current trends in wildlife conservation: A review, INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF FAUNA AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES 44, 45 (2016),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308610297_Current_trends_in_wildlife_conservation_A_review.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Samir Sinha, Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, TRAFFIC INDIA- WWF-INDIA, (June 11,
2021, 9:29 PM), https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/6284/handbook-wildlife-law-enforcement-india.pdf.
derivatives, and extracts listed in CITES Appendices I and II, as well as a list of 29 taxa listed
at Export Licensing Note 1 and orchids collected in the wild, are restricted for export under
the Indian government’s EXIM policy.33

On the proposal of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Director General of Foreign
Trade-DGFT can issue special exemptions for research, education, and life-saving
pharmaceuticals on a case-by-case basis.

VERMIN OR VICTIM?

If state administrations assert that wild animals are ‘vermin’ or animals causing nuiance that
threaten harvests, possessions, or individuals, they risk being added to a government-
approved “kill list.”

First, the background.

Following appeals from the various States, the Centre sanctioned the discarding of wildlife
for instance “Nilgai and wild boar in Bihar, and rhesus monkey in Himachal Pradesh”, by
classifying them ‘vermin’ underneath the “Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, in December
2015.”34 The administration was chastised by wildlife campaigners, Union Minister Maneka
Gandhi, and additional apprehensive organizations for approving such a move. Maharashtra
and Goa had reportedly lodged grievances against peacocks, the national bird of India, while
West Bengal had supposedly entreated that the elephant be classified as “vermin.”35

What the law says

The term “vermin” is not defined in the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972. However, rats,
crows, and foxes are among the animals categorized as “vermin” under Schedule V.
Administration can transmit a list of wildlife to the Centre under “Section 62 of the Wildlife
Protection Act of 1972”, requesting that it label them vermin for discerning killing. By
notification, the Central Government may assert any wildlife not included in “Schedule I or
part 11 of Schedule H” of the rule to be vermin in any zone for a set p of expansion of period.
33
Vijay Oak, Wild life Protection: Legislative and Judicial Response, LEGAL SERVICES INDIA, (June 11, 2021,
9:29 PM), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wild.htm.
34
SC asks NGOs to move HC against declaring Nilgai, Monkeys as vermins, LIVE LAW (June 11, 2021, 9:29
PM), https://www.livelaw.in/sc-asks-ngos-move-hc-declaring-nilgai-monkeys-vermins/.
35
Vidya Venkat, Vermin or victim? THE HINDU (June 11, 2021, 9:29 PM),
https://www.thehindu.com/specials/Vermin-or-victim/article14428071.ece.
With the understanding that the report is in effect, such uninhabited animals will be listed in
“Schedule V” of the statute, making them ineligible for any fortification provided by that
commandment. These animals have been classified as Schedule V, allowing them to be
hunted.36

Many experts, on the other hand, have claimed that mass culling is unsuccessful and does not
alleviate skirmishes between animals and humans. In light of this, it’s substantial perceiving
that “Section 62 of the Act’s” validity is also in doubt for three causes:

1 It is unconstitutional under Constitution’s Article 14.

2. It is in violation of the Constitution’s Article 21.

3. When establishing laws that affect wildlife, the state must be cautious, according to the
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and the fundamental duties.

Article 14

Equality and equal protection under the law are guaranteed by Indian Constitution’s “Article
14.” Manifest arbitrariness is one of the standards used to establish if Article 14 is being
followed. When a law is “excessive” and “capricious,” or when it lacks an “adequate
governing premise,” it is said to be arbitrarily applied. 37 The phrasing of “Section 62”, which
empowers the Centre to affirm any uninhabited animal to be a “vermin” save those
enumerated in “Schedule I and part II of Schedule II of the Act”, does not reveal a
determining principle, let alone one that is adequate. According to notifications given by the
Union environment ministry, the Centre does not employ any precise principles to assess
whether a species can be classified as “vermin.” Only that the faunas have developed into a
danger to material goods, life span, and agriculture is mentioned in the notifications. The
choice is greatly influenced by the desires of the state governments.38

States have previously requested that the Centre classify some animals as “vermin,” deprived
of presenting any specific explanations or estimations of the damage instigated by those
creatures. The Centre sends out these notices in response to requests from state governments,

36
Vidya Krishnan and Jacob Koshy, What is and isn’t vermin, THE HINDU (June 11, 2021, 9:29 PM),
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/What-is-and-isn%E2%80%99t-vermin/article14433879.ece.
37
Ibid.
38
Malavika Parthasarathy and Apoorva, Is It Constitutional to Declare Wild Animals to Be ‘Vermin’? THE WIRE
(June 11, 2021, 9:29 PM), https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/animals-vermin-section-62-wildlife-protection-
constitutionality/.
whether they are well-researched or not. As a result, this establishment grieves from
“manifest arbitrariness” in together its wording and implementation.39

Article 21

In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja 40, the Supreme Court of India
made a contentious judgement., Animals now have the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution, according to the Supreme Court. Although this ruling garnered criticism from
lawyers and constitutional experts, it has been acknowledged and expanded upon by high
courts around the country. In 2018, the “Uttarakhand high court” 41 and in 2019, the “Punjab
and Haryana high court”42 proclaimed all adherents of the animal kingdom to be lawful
beings with unique lawful identities and privileges comparable to those of humans. Although
one may make ill with these decisions, they are legitimate legal interpretations for the time
being.

The same precautions that put on to people, such as the right not to be dispossessed of “life or
personal liberty” with the exception of under “just, fair, and reasonable procedures” and also
apply to animals as a result of this enlargement of Article 21. There are no procedural rules
governing how and when “Section 62” can be used. Consequently, the administration has
complete choice in determining which creatures are worthy of being labeled as “vermin.”.43

Furthermore, the orders themselves are frequently misunderstood or abused due to their
ambiguous wording. Some orders, for example, do not prohibit certain species’ animals from
being killed in forestry, permitting animals that do not stand a serious peril to “life or
property” to be slaughtered for no environmental or even philanthropic grounds. This is an
exorbitant reply. Furthermore, there have been accounts of ‘wanton killings,’ in which traps
set to seize and exterminate exact kinds of animal wind up slaughter animals of additional
species.44

What the DPSPs and fundamental duties say

39
Ibid.
40
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors, (2014) 7 SCC 547.
41
Narayan Dutt Bhatt vs Union of India and Ors, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 645.
42
Karnail Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 704
43
Ibid.
44
Farmers Move Kerala High Court Seeking To Declare Wild Boar As 'Vermin' Under Wildlife Protection Act,
LIVE LAW (June 11, 2021, 9:29 PM), https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/farmers-move-kerala-high-court-
seeking-to-declare-wild-boar-as-vermin-under-wildlife-protection-act-165277.
Wildlife is mentioned for the first time in the Article 48A of Indian Constitution, which is
portion of the “DPSPs.” It shapes that the government will work to maintain and develop the
surroundings, as well as to protect forests and wildlife. Every citizen has a responsibility
under Article 51A(g) of the fundamental obligations to “protect and improve the natural
environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living
creatures.”45

The Supreme Court declared in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal (1987) that if an
ecological matter is presented before the court, the judges must consider Articles 48A and
51A. (g). The court in that case also stated that when the court is asked to give effect to the
DPSPs and fundamental obligations, the very least it can do is ensure that proper factors are
taken into account and unnecessary information is excluded.46 However, the government
frequently disregards “relevant considerations” and considers extraneous factors such as
public pressure when deciding whether or not to declare a species to be “vermin.”

In a case from 1987, the Andhra Pradesh high court47 stated that, in light of Articles 48A and
51A(g), the state and all of its organs are clearly committed to safeguard the environment. As
a result, allowing animals to be culled is a violation of this commitment.48

Perhaps more importantly, the Supreme Court decided in a later judgment that the DPSPs and
fundamental obligations play a crucial role in determining the constitutional legitimacy of a
statute provision or executive conduct. And a careful examination of all of these examples
reveals that Section 62 should be revisited.

Where do we go from here?

Legislators should specifically tweak Section 62 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 such
that it allows them to be more cautious when deciding which species “deserve” to be hunted.
Perhaps they, as well as the courts, can take inspiration from the Act’s Section 11(1)(b),
which permits the chief wildlife warden or an authorised official to approve the hunting of an
animal that has become threatening to human life or property (including crops). As a result,
the threshold for assessing whether an animal can be hunted is raised, and hunting is limited
to only certain creatures or groups of species.49

45
Constitution of India, Article 51A (g).
46
Sachidananda Pandey v. State Of West Bengal & Ors,1987 AIR 1109, 1987 SCR (2) 223
47
T. Damodhar Rao and Ors. v. The Special Officer, Municipal, AIR 1987 AP 171.
48
Ibid.
49
Vidya Venkat, Vermin or victim? THE HINDU (June 11, 2021, 9:29 PM),
https://www.thehindu.com/specials/Vermin-or-victim/article14428071.ece.
However, Section 62 does not distinguish between those who are directly responsible for crop
devastation and others of the same species in its current form. It also has a number of legal
flaws, particularly with relation to Articles 14 and 21.50 Humans and the rest of the ecosystem
should live in harmony, according to our constitutional framework. The section jeopardizes
this delicate relationship and calls into question our core human ideals of compassion,
understanding, and respect for all living things.

CAUSES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES IN INDIA

The following are some of the characteristics of India’s wildlife resources:51

 They represent an open treasury, with most people being able to use it for free or with
very few restrictions.
 Generally low knowledge of the significance of biodiversity, forests, and animals in
policy and enforcement circles, resulting in a limited comprehension of the nature of
threats to them.
 In agencies responsible for enforcement, awareness, and extension activity, there are
insufficient human resources and infrastructure.
 Offenders in forest and animal crimes are often not stigmatized.
 The administration of such resources has undergone a paradigm shift, from essentially
little control a few decades ago to absolute control, which is difficult to impose.
 There is a lack of coordination among the many law enforcement authorities in charge
of crime prevention and detection.
 a scarcity of specialized talents, such as those required for crime deterrence,
uncovering, examination, and trial.
 Despite the low bulk of offenses, there are a large quantity of wrongdoers.
 Rustic communities living in close proximity to wildlife properties frequently lack
effective options for their food and livelihood needs generated from such resources.

CONCLUSION

50
Ibid.
51
Bappa Majumdar, Habitat loss forces India's tigers to high ground, REUTERS (June 11, 2021, 9:29 PM),
https://www.reuters.com/article/environment-india-tigers-dc-idUSDEL4899720071217.
Linking human privileges and the atmosphere is a necessary step toward understanding the
unexplored region that exists between environmental and human rights laws.

Human beings have the ability to establish fundamental equality and acceptable living
circumstances in an atmosphere that promotes dignity and well-being. It is critical to enact
legislation that recognises that individuals who damage or damage the usual environment or
animals are not just committing crimes against nature, but also breaching human rights.
Certainly, it appears that health is the issue that bridges the gap between environmental
conservation and human rights.52

The progress of the human-wildlife interaction would allow for the adoption of human rights
values, for instance anti-discrimination rules, the necessity for societal involvement, and the
safety of susceptible populations, into an environmental context. There is an urgent need to
protect and save wildlife around the world, notably in Asia and Southeast Asia. In all prior
studies, the main danger has been habitat loss. Reduced deforestation is an important part of
the answer to habitat loss. Deforestation has decreased and afforestation has grown between
1990 and 2015.

Aichi’s Target Plan (2010-2020) and the Millennium Development Goal are two more key
projects for habitat management. 53 Forest area is gradually declining due to fragmentation,
with a 0.08 percent rate of loss recorded between 2010 and 2015, which is still a topic of
debate. FRA is highly active in collecting and analysing data, but nations’ collaboration with
FRA is critical for understanding and identifying concerns. Second, international and national
commerce pose a significant danger to animal conservation.

These trades have exploded in popularity as a means of making money. There is an

international CITES agreement regarding trading controls among 175 countries. However,
there is no strong implementation, and governments are sloppy when it comes to enacting law
and enforcing norms. Human actions are to blame. Climate change, global warming, and
pollution are all accelerating on the planet. There are no new laws, and current laws are not
being enforced effectively enough to safeguard the species.54

52
Indian Bar Association, Constitutional Provisions for the Protection of Environment with relevant Case Laws,
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/environmental-law-article.pdf.
53
Sanam Naz and Mubashar Hussain, Current trends in wildlife conservation: A review, INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF FAUNA AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES 44, 45 (2016),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308610297_Current_trends_in_wildlife_conservation_A_review.
54
Ibid.
In the current climate, strong laws, political initiatives, public awareness, target prediction,
moral and ethical considerations, and, most importantly, cooperation between government
and non-government organisations to protect wildlife are all critical.