WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

AN ASSIGNMENT
ON
WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND
CONSERVATION

Jamia millia islamia

Faculty of law

SUBMITTED BY:
NAME- syed abbas haider
Subject- environment law
BALLB (Hons.) Vith semester

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Environment LawPage 1

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

Now that the project stands complete, I intend to place on record my gratitude towards all
without whom completing the project would have been nothing but out of question.
I have taken efforts in this project but it wouldn't have been possible without the support of many
individuals.
In the first place, I am highly indebted to Professor Manjula Batra for her guidance and

constant supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the project and
also for his support in completing the project.
Secondly, I thank the library staff who liaised with us in searching material relating to the
project.
Thirdly, My thanks and appreciations also go to my friends in developing the project and people
who have willingly helped me out with their abilities, and
Finally, I thank the almighty for the monumental tacit support, which boosted my morale and
help me stay confident all through my work upon the project, placed forth by him.

SYED ABBAS HAIDER

Environment LawPage 2

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

Article 48 of the Constitution of India specifies that, The

state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country and,
Article 51-A states that 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.

INTRODUCTION
Environment LawPage 3

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

Wildlife traditionally refers to non-domesticated vertebrates, but has come to broadly reference
to all wild plants, animals and other organisms. Domesticating wild plant and animal species for
human benefit has occurred many times all over the planet, and has a major impact on the
environment, both positive and negative.
India has the largest wild population of endangered tigers in the world. The most endangered Indian
top predator of 2010, the dhole is on edge of extinction. Less than 2500 members of the species
remain in the world. The Wildlife in India is a mix of species of different types of organisms.
Apart from a handful of the major famed animals such as cows, buffaloes, goats, poultry and sheep, India has
anamazingly wide variety of animals native to the country. It is home to tigers, lions, leopards,
snowleopards, pythons, wolves, foxes, bears, crocodiles, rhinoceroses, camels, wild

dogs,

monkeys, snakes, antelope species, deer species, varieties of bison and not to mention the mighty
Asian elephant. The region's rich and diverse wildlife is preserved in 89 national parks,13 Bio
reserves and 400+ wildlife sanctuaries across the country
Since India is home to a number of rare and threatened animal species, wildlife management in the
country is essential to preserve these species According to one study, India along with 17 mega diverse
countries is home to about 60-70% of the world's biodiversity.

History
The wild life laws have a long history and it is the cumulative result of an increasing awareness
of the compelling need to restore the catastrophic ecological imbalances introduced by the
depredations inflicted on nature by human being. The earliest codified law can be traced to 3rd
Century B.C. when Asoka, the King of Magadha, enacted a law in the matter of preservation of
wild life and environment. But, the first codified law in India which heralded the era of laws for
the wild life and protection was enacted in the year 1887 by the British and was titled as the Wild
Birds Protection Act, 1887 (10 of 1887). This Act enabled the then Government to frame rules
prohibiting the possession or sale of any kinds of specified wild birds, which have been killed or
taken during the breeding season. Again the British Government in the year 1912 passed the
Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 (8 of 1912) as the Act of 1887 proved to be
inadequate for the protection of wild birds and animals. The Act of 1912 was amended in the
year 1935 by the Wild Birds and Animals Protection (Amendment) Act, 1935 (27 of 1935).
Environment LawPage 4

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

With a land mass of the 329 million hectares and coast line of 7516 km, with oceans, lakes,
rivers and mighty Himalayas and several other mountains ranges, the desert of Rajasthan, the
plateaus, the wetlands and the islands of Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep, India, our
beautiful country, is the home to an amazing variety of fauna and flora. There are about 75,000
species of animals, of which 340 species are mammals, 1200 birds, 420 reptiles, 140 amphibians,
2000 fishes, 50,000 insects, 4000 mollusks and several other species of vertebrates.

After the Second World War the freedom struggle for India started taking its shape and wild life
was relegated to the background. But after independence, the Constituent Assembly in the Draft
Constitution placed "Protection of Wild Birds and Wild Animals" at entry No.20 in the State List
and the State Legislature has been given power to legislate.

Need for Conservation:

The gradual emergence of the human beings as the most

dominant species among all other species of animals and the attempt of the human beings to set
them apart from other species is the main underlying cause of the contemporary environmental
disaster. The main reason behind a threat to the wildlife and the ecosystem is the constantly
growing deforestation, poaching and negligence towards animals and nature.
At the present estimate, 81 species of mammals, 38 species of birds, 18 species of amphibians
and reptiles considered to be endangered in India. The tiger is the largest living member of the
cat family, followed by the lion and the leopard. Habitat destruction and poaching brought about
a sharp decline in their number and the national census of tigers in 1972 recorded that there were
just 1827 of them in our country.
With the entire gloomy picture in regard of our wildlife, India is keen to do its best to protect its
wild life. Luckily, we have ability and media, vocal environmental groups, NGOs and others who
would not tolerate any more interference or intuition with the vast diversity of animal wildlife.

Relevant Laws:

Environment LawPage 5

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

Wildlife laws in India can be traced back to early third century BC, when Asoka, the Emperor,
codified a law for the preservation of wildlife and environment. Thereafter came several laws
among which, the first codified law was the Wild Bird Protection Act, 1887, enacted by the
British Government. The Government of India brought for the first time a comprehensive act, the
Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972, which was later amended and changes were brought in as
the need arose. Furthermore, to protect the wildlife, the Government of India also became a
signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) since October, 1976.
Besides WPA and CITES; the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C), 1973; Customs Act, 1962; Indian Forest Act, 1927; Forest Conservation Act, 1981;
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are some of the important weapons available for
check and control of wildlife offences including trade.
Wild Life Protection Act (WPA), 1972 provides for the protection of Wild animals, birds and
plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. It extends to the
whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The act includes all animals like birds,
mammals etc. While the act clearly defines hunting it also prohibits the usage, supply etc. of
animal articles, Animal article means an article made from any captive animal or wild animal,
other than vermin, and includes an article or object in which the whole or any part of such animal
has been used and ivory imported into India.
Section 9 of the Act prohibits hunting of wild animals and birds specified in Schedule I, II, and
III and IV, except as provided under Sections XI and XII. This classification has been made
keeping in mind the significance and population of wildlife. Those highly threatened find a place
in Schedule I.
As of punishment for offences, Section 51 of the Act prescribes a maximum imprisonment of six
years, Rs 25,000 fine or both for hunting animals and birds specified on Schedule I.

CASE LAWS

Environment LawPage 6

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

1. Consumer Education and Research Society V. Union of India 1
(G.T. Nanavati and S.N. Phukan, JJ.,) Wild Life Protection Act,2
Reducing the area of Sanctuary through notifications of the State legislature
The petitioner, Consumer Education and Research Society filed a special leave petition against
the order of the High Court of Gujarat. The petitioner herein challenged the High Court order
which dismissed its contention which challenged the State Governmental notification reducing
the area of Narayan Sarovar Chenkaru Sanctuary. In April 1981, the Gujarat Government
declared 765 sq. kms of thorn forest in the Kutch District as the Narayan Sarvoar Sanctuary. The
Sanctuary covers prime habitats for the Chinkara and is the only protected area where the great
Indian Bustard, the Houbara Bustard and the lesser Florican occur together. A variety of
migratory cranes pass through the area. In the 1990s, Sanghi cement set up its plant on the
southern fringes of the Snctuary. Among the location advantages of the site was the proximity to
rich limestone, lignite and bentonite deposits within the protected areas.
IN 1993, the Gujarat Government issued two notifications. The first claimed that the area of the
sanctuary was substantially in excess of the requirements of the sanctuary and proceeded to
cancel the April 1981 declaration. Simultaneously, the second notification reconstituted a new
Chinkara Wild Life Sanctuary of just 95 sq. kms. The new sanctuary comprised of islands of
non-contiguous areas separated by broad bands of lands where mining activity could proceed.
The High Court rejected the defense and held that 1993 notification were ultra vires. Sec. 26-A
(3) applied to the case and in the absence of a resolution of the State legislature, both the
notifications were quashed.
The petitioner contended that the High Court did not apply its mind to all the relevant aspects.
Further they also contended that there were large number of trees on the land which was given on
1 (2000(1) SCALE 606)
2 1972
Environment LawPage 7

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

lease for the purpose of setting up a cement plant. The same was not brought to the notice of
legislature.
However in this case the Apex Court held it will not be proper to invalidate the resolution of the
state legislature on such a ground when we find that it took the decision after duly deliberating
upon the materials which was available with it and did not think it necessary to call for further
information. The power to take a decision of the notification area is not given to the State
Government but to the State Legislature. It will not be proper to question the decision of the Sate
Legislature in a matter of this type unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so.
Even when it is found by the court that the decision was taken by the State Legislature hastily
and without considering all the relevant aspects it will be prudent to invalidate its decision unless
there is material to show that it will have irreversible adverse affect on the wildlife and
environment
The court also observed that the State Government and the Legislature attempted to balance
environment and development and therefore there was no need to apply principle of prohibition,
but had to applied the principle of protection or principle of polluter pays to the major mining
operations which are carried within the notified area.
The court declined to quash the state government notifications and resolutions of the State
Legislature instead ordered restoration and controlled exploitation of the mineral wealth of that
area.

2. Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund for Nature v. State of
Orissa3 (A. Pasayat and P.C. Naik JJ.)
The petitioners in this case sought the intervention of the High Court to stop a project involving
the construction of a fish landing Centre at Talchua as flora and fauna are directly going to be
affected in and around the Bhitar Kanika Wildlife Sanctuary.

3 [AIR 1999 Ori. 14]

Environment LawPage 8

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

To investigate the disputed matter, the Court ordered for the constitution of a Committee by the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, along with the Principle Secretary of the State and other
authorities as its members. In furtherance of this, the Environment Impact Assessment
Committee submitted its report to the Honble court. In its contention the State Government
justified before the court that it would continue the project without affecting eco-systems of
Bhirakani Sanctuary and also said that no violation has taken place.
The Court after referring the Committees Report and the arguments of the parties observed that
there couldnt be a golden scale to evaluate these problems. The Court further laid down the
directions to be followed by observance of conditions of the Environmental Statutes like the
Wildlife Protection Act 1972, in the interest of the local people without affecting the
environment.

Disposing the petition, the Court passed the following orders:

1. All possible attempts for the influx of migratory human population of the surrounding area.
2.To restrict the State Government from furthering the construction of bridges and
developmental activities in the Sanctuary.

3. Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I v. Union of India4

[SC Agarwal, S. Sagir Ahmad and Srinivsan JJ]
Wild Life Protection Act - Sections 33-A, 34
Setting up of Veterinary Centers in Sanctuaries and National Parks
The present case highlights the level of non-compliance by States and Union Territories with the
provisions of Wildlife Protection Act. In this case the Supreme Court after obtaining the
affidavits by the various States found that there is hardly any compliance with the two sections
(Section 33-A and 34), especially in relation to immunization of livestock.
4 (AIR 1999 354 SC)
Environment LawPage 9

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

The Court directed the States and Union Territories to take concrete steps for the establishment
of veterinary centers of the Animal Husbandry Department in the immediate vicinity and
territory of the National Parks/Sanctuaries within a period of two months in order to fulfill the
requirement under Section 33-A.
As there was no concrete steps were been taken regarding registration of persons possessing
arms as stated in the Section 34, the Court also directed that all the States and Union Territories
Administration shall frame the necessary rules for the purpose of registration of persons in
possession of arms.

4. Gujarat Navodaya Mandal v. State of Gujarat5 [Pandit J]

Laying of pipeline inside a Sanctuary
The petitioners, Gujrat Navodaya Mandal, a registered Society under the Society Registration
Act, filed this Writ Petition challenging the permission given to Reliance Petroleum Ltd., to lay a
pipeline in the Marine National park/Sanctuary, Jamagar.
The respondents, Reliance Petroleum Ltd., (RPL) had undertaken Moti Khadi Refinery Project
for the production of petroleum products. RPL, in order to function the said project had to import
crude oil by sea fare and then to refine the same and produce the petroleum products in their
refinery.
RPL had taken clearance from the State Government and No Objection Certificate (NOC) from
Gujarat Pollution Control Board. The Environment Department of the Government of India gave
clearance under Environment Protection Act, 1986 on certain conditions. Further RPL sought
permission under section 2 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and section 2(ii) of Forest
Conservation Act and the same was granted by the Chief Wildlife Warden.
The petitioner argued that the Chief Wildlife Warden had no jurisdiction to pass the said order of
clearance under Section 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The petitioner also contended
5 1992 (2) Guj L. Her.359

Environment LawPage 10

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

that the said order would render damage to the forest as well as the marine life and environment.
The petitioner prayed for striking down the impugned order.
RPL contended that the order would in no way cause damage to environment. RPL had engaged
National Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) as well as National Institute Oceanography
(NIO) to survey the implementation of the project. These organizations carried out the survey
project and cleared the project for RPL. The respondent informed to the Court that it has adopted
the spillage control system and would not cause any damage to marine life.
The Court after hearing the arguments observed, if section considered as a whole, then it would
be quite clear that the destruction done only with the permission granted by Chief Wildlife
Warden. Section 29 does not say that for granting such permission, Chief Wildlife Warden is
required to obtain permission from the State Government which is to be satisfied that the same is
necessary for better management and improvement of Wildlife. That condition is applicable only
in case there is destruction or exploitation or removal of wildlife.
The court also held that both the Central Government and the State Government have been
taking necessary precautions to ensure that neither the ecology nor the environment is damaged
while implementing the project in question. Hence petition was rejected.

5. Nagarhole Budakattu Hakku Sthaapana Samithi v. State of Karnataka6

[G.C. Bharuka J.,]
Grant of leasing rights in a National Park
The petitioner is an organization working for the welfare of the tribals and is interested in
ensuring the maintenance of the ecological fame in Nagarhole National Park. They challenged
lease hold rights of certain properties situated in the midst of Nagarhole National Park under
lease deed by the Government of Karnataka in favour of M/s Gateway Hotels Resorts Ltd., This
private company was running its business of boarding, lodging and restaurant, past 18 years in
the National Park. The petitioners contended that the grant of leasehold rights violates the
6 AIR 1997 Kar. 288
Environment LawPage 11

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

statutory restrictions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The
petitioner argued that there is a threat to tribals and eco-tourism will bring in modern day voices
of the ultra urban culture. The petitioners alleged that the under the name of renovation of the
structures, the respondent - Company is putting up new structures extending its operational
activities to unworked forest lands by constructing metalled roads and cutting trees. They also
claimed that powerful generator sets have been installed, which in due course will severely affect
natural movement of wild animals.
The respondent company repudiated the allegations of the petitioners and argued that they
placed builders on pre-existing jungle pathways to make the roads motor able for an easy access
to the resort.
But, the Court felt that the State Government should have taken prior approval of the Central
Government as stated under section 2 of Forest Conservation Act before leasing the same land to
the private company.
A conjoint reading of section 20 and 35(3) of the Act spells out a restriction on requisition of any
right in, on or every land comprised within the limits of the area of a National Park except by
succession, testamentary or interstate.
The Court felt that after the declaration by the State Government about its intention to declare an
area as a national park under section 35(1) no one can acquire any right in on or over the land
comprised therein. The court ordered to the respondent company to immediately stop all its
activities on the forestland in question and handover its possession to the State Government. The
cost of the Public Interest Litigation assessed at 10,0000 to be paid by the State Government and
respondent Company.

6. Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India,7

[B.P. Jeevan Reddy and N. Venkatachala JJ.,]

7 (1993) Sup (3) SCC 115

Environment LawPage 12

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Sections 2
Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 - Sections - 29
Mining operations in Tiger Forest
The present petition was filed by a voluntary organization, Tarun Bharat Sangh which works
toward the cause of better environmental protection. The petitioners complained that the illegal
mining operations for limestone and marble were going on in the area declared as tiger reserve in
the Alwar district of Rajasthan. It prayed to the court that such activity should be stopped in the
interest of the environment & ecology.
The tiger reserve is a protected forest under Rajasthan Forest Act and also a National Park under
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The petitioner argued that the mining license could be granted
within the protected forest except with prior permission of the Government of India under Forest
Conservation Act, 1980.
The committees report (a committee was appointed by the Court) revealed that 215 mines
(Appendix A of the Report) fall completely within the areas declared as protected forest. 47
mines (Appendix B of the report) fall partly inside and partly outside the areas declared as
protected forest. The Rajasthan Government on its behalf filed an application before the Court
seeking permission to delineate 5.02 sq. kms of land from out the protected forest is the interest
of economy of the State, industry and workers involved. This 5.02 sq. kms of land was meant to
be used for mining operations.
Meanwhile in May 1992 the Central Government issued a notification under Section 3 of the
Environment Protection Act, 1986, which prohibits carrying of mining operations except with
Central Governments prior permission in the areas covered under Project Tiger.

Adjudicating the case, the court issued a series of directions:

1. Stopping mines listed in A and B of the Committee Report

Environment LawPage 13

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

2. Central Government has to submit its report before 3 months regarding the State Government
proposal to delete 5.02 sq. kms from the protected area.
3. Mines outside the protected forest permitted for four months and have to take Central
Government permission in that period. They have to close their mines if permission is not
granted by the Central Government.

7. G.R. Simon and Others v. Union of India8

[M. Jagannath Rao CJ. Anil Dev Singh and Manmohan Sarin JJ.,]
Wild life Protection Act, 1921
Constitution of India -Art 19(1) (g), 300, 300-A
The petitioners are manufacturers wholesalers and dealers engaged in retail trade of tanned,
cured and finished skin of animals and are also engaged in retail trade of articles made of skin
(animal articles).
The petitioners challenged chapter V -A of Wild life Protection of the Amendment Act, 1986 and
notifications issued there in as violating Articles 19(1) (g) read with Art.300 and Art.300 A of the
Constitution.
The petitioners argued that there is no nexus between the object of preservation of animal life
and banning and destroying trade/business in the animal skins and articles made from them.
Further they refused the offer of Bharat Leather Corporation to buy the articles, as the price was
very low. The petitioner further argued that the amendment to the Act by which the holding of
stocks on the expiry of the stipulated period, except reclaimed for personal use, becomes
unlawful was assailed as confiscatory and as deprivation of property. They contended that the
amendment Act rendered the petitioners jobless without any compensation. The petitioners who
had lawfully acquired skin and skin articles of animals (already killed) and had invested huge

8 (AIR 1997 Del 301)

Environment LawPage 14

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

amounts of money were deprived of sources of livelihood and violating Art. 19(1)(g). The
protection of large numbers of wild animals could not be said to be in public interest.
However the Court rejected the petitioners contentions and stressed the importance of passing
the Wild life Protection Act. It said that the wildlife form part of the cultural heritage in the same
manner as archeological monuments painting, literature etc., and each and every animal plays a
role in maintaining the ecological balance. The petitioners had all the opportunity of selling and
disposing of their stocks to authorized persons from the date of amendments till the date of case
and wasted that time.
The Amending Act was not a colorable exercise of power. The power to make necessary changes
in the Schedule of Wildlife [Protection] Act vests in the Government under Sec. 61 of the Act.
The submission that Chapter V-A of the Act provides for acquisition and confiscation of property
is not correct in as much as for the preservation of certain species in Schedules I and II after the
prescribed period in the Act makes the possession and retention of the said animal articles an
offence. The question of making provision in the Act for purchase of stocks from the traders on
market rate or for payment of compensation does not arise because the Amending Act does not
provide for the acquisition of the stocks or nay other property held by them. It only provides for
time period within which persons holding stocks of such articles have to dispose of the said
stocks and upon the expiry of the stipulated period it becomes an offence under Sec. 49-C (7) of
the Wildlife Act.
The Court also held that neither the State nor the Bharat Leather Corporation and State Trading
Corporation are under any legal obligation to purchase the stocks of the petitioners. The
petitioners are also not entitled to any further time for disposal of stocks. The stocks of the
petitioners would therefore liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
The amendment to the Act are valid and intra-vires.

8. State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan 9

9 (AIR 1989 SC 1)
Environment LawPage 15

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

(Ranganath Misra and M.N. Venkatachalaiah JJ.,)
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 - Sections 9, 51

Cr. P.C.- Sections-210, 420

Cognizance of Magistrate Under Wildlife Act

The present case relates to a special Leave petition under Art.136 of the Constitution by the State
of Bihar against the decision of High Court of Patna quashing the order of Magistrate taking
cognizance under section 9(1) and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
The three respondents with two others shot and killed an elephant in Kunduruguty Range Forest
and removed ivory tusks of the elephant. The Range Forest Officer lodged written complaint
with the Judicial Magistrate I class, Chibusa, alleging offences against the respondents under
Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance of this offence and ordered issue of process to the
accused. However, a case had been registered at the Police Station, Sanua, under Sections 447,
429 and 379 I.P.C read with sections 54 and 39 of the Wildlife Protection Act and the matter was
under investigation by the police.
Meanwhile, the respondents approached the High Court under the Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for
quashing the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the alleged offence and issuing
summons. The High Court accepted the petitioners contention that Section 210(1) of Cr.P.C. was
attracted as an investigation by the Police was in progress in relation to the same offence .The
learned magistrate would be required to stay the proceedings on the complaint and call a report
from the police. The Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence
and ordering issue of process against the accused. Relying on this the High Court quashed the
proceedings. The decision of the High Court was based on two grounds. Firstly, the learned
magistrate acted contrary to the provision of Section 210 of Cr.P.C and, secondly, on the merits
of the complaint.
Honble Supreme Court observed that the High Court has erred in coming to the right
conclusion. The court said cognizance of an offence against the Act can be taken by a court only
Environment LawPage 16

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

on the complaint of the officer mentioned in Section 55 and it has been done in this
case...cognizance can be taken only one way and that the complaint of a particular statutory
functionary. There is no scope or occasion for taking more than once and accordingly Section
210 had no role to play.
The court also said that the Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. In exercising that
jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the
complaint are likely to be established by evidence.
The Court also held that an offence envisaged under Section 9(1) read with Sections 2(16) and
51 of the Wild life Protection Act, in its ingredients and content, is not the same or substantially
the same as Section 429 of the Penal Code. Therefore in the case of killing of an elephant, the
report of Police investigation which made out that no offence was committed under Section 429
of Penal Code would not bar with initiation of such proceedings under Section 9(1) read with
Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Hence the Court set aside the High Court order
and the Magistrate order was restored

9. Jagdish Singh v. State of Bihar10, Patna High Court (S.N. Jha J.,)
Wild Life Protection Act: Section 51
Rs. 50 penalty for killing a Bison
The petitioner filed the present appeal against the order of the trial Court which convicted him
for the imprisonment of 3 months for killing a Bison. While the Wild Life Warden was patrolling
the forest along with his staff in the Betla Reserved Forest, found the petitioner killing a Bison.
The Wild Life Warden prepared the seizure list and arrested the petitioner and filed the case
before the sub-divisional magistrate. He charged him under Section 51 Wild Life Protection Act.
Against this order the petitioners filed an appeal before Sessions Judge. The petitioner contended
that the wild life warden had no jurisdiction to file a complaint; only Chief Wild Life Warden or
any authorized under the Act by the State Government had the power to do so. However, the
10 (1985 Cr.L.J. 1314)
Environment LawPage 17

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

respondent argued that any officer authorized by the State Government to file a complaint is
quite competent under the Act.
Rule 31 of 1973 Rules framed by the State Government provides power to Divisional Forest
Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest to file a complaint apart and along with the Chief Wild
Life Warden. In this case, complaint was filed after obtaining sanction from Divisional Forests
Officer who had authorized to file the complaint. Finally the court held that the petitioners have
no force in their submission. But the Court observed that as occurrence took 10 years ago. So no
fruitful purpose would be served in sentencing them who are on bail. The court modified the
order of 3 months imprisonment into fine only of Rs.50 to each of the petitioners.

10. Pradeep Krishnan v. Union of India11

[Ahmadi CJI., B. L Hansaria and S. C Sen JJ.]
Wild Life Protection Act 1972
Challenging the order of the Department of Forests: Collection of tendu leaves
by tribals in National Parks and Sanctuaries
The petitioner, an environmentalist, filed this petition under Art.32 of the Constitution
challenging the legality and constitutional validity of an 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 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Art
14 and 21, 48-A and 51 A (g) of the Constitution
He also argued that order is mala-fide and against the public interest.

The petitioners contention was based on the following points:

11 (AIR 1996 SC 2040)

Environment LawPage 18

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

1. Whether an area declared as a Sanctuary and National Park under Section 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
and National Parks?
The respondent informed the Court that there is no real danger to flora, fauna and wildlife in the
National Parks and Sanctuaries. However the petitioner clarified to the Court that he is
challenging commercial exploitation of tendu leaves through the contractor as it goes against the
scope and object of Wildlife Protection Act, not the rights of tribals in relation to collection of
tendu leaves in the National Parks and Sanctuaries. The tribals sought an intervention in the
case. They argued that they are genuine users of tendu leaves. It is for their livelihood and not for
commercial purpose s. Collection of tendu leaves is a privilege for generations.
The court observed that the procedure with regard to acquisition of rights in and over the land to
be included in a Sanctuary or National Park has to be followed before a final Notification under
Section 26 or Section 35(1) issued by the State Government. There was no final Notification,
being issued under these provisions. In the instant case, it is not the contention of the petitioner
that the procedure of the acquisition of rights in or over the land of those living in the vicinity of
the area proposed to be declared as sanctuaries and National Parks under Section 26A and 35 of
the Act has been undertaken. It was this reason that the order of 28-3-1995 in terms stated that
since no final notification was issued under the said provisions, the state government was not in a
position to bar the entry of the villagers living in and around the Sanctuaries and the National
Parks so long as their rights were not acquired and final notifications under the aforesaid
provisions were issued. So State Government has not violated any provision of law, as the
Government was not in a position to bar the entry of the villagers into Sanctuaries and National
Parks.
The court directed to the State Government that steps must be taken issuing final notification and
also ordered to institute an enquiry regarding acquiring rights of tribals with regard to land. The
court directed that the above steps should be complied within a period of 6 months from the date
of order.
Environment LawPage 19

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

The court gave several directions which include:
a) The State Government must complete the process of issuing final notifications
b) Immediate action with regard to institution of an inquiry
c) Acquire the rights of those who claim any right in or over any land proposed to be
included in the Sanctuary/National Park

11. Rafique Ramzan Ali v. A.A. Jalgaonkar 12 Bombay High Court (Parekh J.,)
Sec. 39 to 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972
Seizing the skins of snakes and lizards
The petitioner filed this appeal against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-conviction for offences under Section 39(3), 40(2), 42(1), 44(2), 49 read with Section
51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. The Assistant Conservator of Forest raided the petitioners
shop when he was exhibiting for sale of articles made of lizard and snake skins.
The petitioners argued that the Wild Life Protection Act was designed to protect certain species
of wild life as listed in the Schedule of the Act. So the Act does not apply to all types of snakes
and lizards. The prosecution could only proceed if the articles seized were made of protected
species of snakes and lizards.
After hearing both the parties the court concluded that the complaint did not disclose any offence
especially whether articles seized were made of skins of species of lizard and snakes specified in
the schedule. So the court held that the petitioner has not committed any offence under the Act,
hence the conviction was set aside.

12. Nabin Chandra v. State 13[Sarjoo Prasad CJ.]

Indian Penal Code Section 429, 425
12 1984 Cr. C. J. 1460
13 [AIR 1961 ASS 18]
Environment LawPage 20

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

Killing of Rhinoceros
The petitioner shot and killed a Rhinoceros with a gun. The Magistrate convicted the petitioner
under Section 429 of I. P. C and the Sessions Judge upheld the Magistrates decision in an
appeal.
However the petitioner contended that the conviction under section 429 of the Indian Penal Code
was not valid, as the section does not apply to the killing of wild animals like Rhinoceros. The
court held it is clear from the language of the section that the various animals enumerated therein
are all domestic animals so the words any other animal in the section means animal of same kind
or class, ejusdem generis, as domestic. animals and does not include wild animals. Moreover
Rhinoceros cannot be held as domestic animal.
Further, the Court held that Section 425, which speaks of mischief, does not apply here. Where
no one has any property or right in an animal, the rule of Mischief cannot be admitted. Hence the
killing of Rhinoceros does not come within the meaning of section 425.
The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner and ordered for refund of fine
imposed by the Wildlife warden.

13. Trilok Bahadur v. State of Arunachal Pradesh 14 (Gauhati High Court)

(K.N. Sarkaria J.,)
Sec. 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972
Killing of a tiger
The petitioner, a Guard in Changlai camp, when on sentry duty observed and reported the
presence of a tiger. Accordingly he was ordered by his Commander to fire two or three rounds in
the air. The tiger instead fleeing came towards him and attempted to assault him. The accused
had no option but to fire at the tiger. As a result the tiger died.
14 1979 CR. L. J 1409
Environment LawPage 21

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

The Deputy Commissioner sentenced the accused for 6 months simple imprisonment under
section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. Criminal revision was filed before this court.
The basic question before the High court was to determine whether the accused killed the tiger in
hunting or his self-defense. The court observed that the nature and ferocity of the animal would
be relevant in that context.
Romans called tiger ferae nature by nature of dangerous ferocity. In the case of attack by a ferae
nature the victim cannot be expected to weigh the chances in a golden scale. The inference can
be drawn that he was acting in his self-defense. It is a early a case of killing the tiger in good
faith in defense of oneself and it cannot said that the accused was committing any offence prior
to shooting the tiger that charged at him. He is completely protected under section 11(2) of the
Act.

14. Jalandhar Chakma v. Deputy Commissioner of Aijawad15

Sec. 18 of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972
Eviction of villagers from Wild Life Sanctuary: Publication of notification.
The petitioners challenged the order of notification passed by Administrative officers under the
Wildlife Protection Act 1972. The orders related to the eviction of certain villages that are within
the Dampa Wild Sanctuary. The orders were made under Wild Life Protection Act. Under
Section 18 of the Act a notification has been issued by the Development Commissioner declaring
the area given in that notification within the Dampa Wild Sanctuary.
The petitioner contended that there was no publication of such notification in the Official Gazette
and therefore the said notices cannot be sustained. The Court after observing the provisions of
Chapter IV of the Act held that the said orders are without jurisdiction and they were to be set
aside.

15 (AIR 1983 Gau. 18)

Environment LawPage 22

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

15. All India Mobile Zoo Owners and Animal Welfare Association v. Union of
India 16 ( Manmohan Sarin. J )
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Sec. 38-39
Closure of Mobile Zoos
The petitioner prayed the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Wild Life Warden
under the Wild Life Protection Act 1972, for adequate compensation of Rs.15 to 20 lakh in the
event of the closure of the Zoo, as ordered by the Warden under the Act. The Petitioner's
challenge for recognition of their Mobile Zoos under Sec. 28(H) of the Wild Life Act .As they
had failed, they were left with no other alternative but to surrender the animals before the Wild
Life Warden for which they seek instruction from the Court for compensation. The Court after
hearing both the parties, held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation as regards
animals, the possession and holding of which was not illegal under the Act of 1972, but were
surrendered to the authorities. But as to the holding of animals which was illegal and expressly
prohibited under the Act, no such compensation need to be paid, nor any ex gratia payment
could be made, as the petitioners were holding the animals without the permission of the
authorities.

16. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Smt. Halli Devi, 17

R. L Khurana, J.
16 AIR 2000 Delhi 449

17 AIR 2000 H. P 113

Environment LawPage 23

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Sec. 1
Claim of compensation: Attack by a Bear
The petitioner through this petition claimed compensation in tort for damages by injuries
sustained by the claimant as a result of attack by a ferocious wild animal i.e., black bear. The
question before the Court to adjudicate was whether the Wild Life Protection Act 1972 provides
any sort of compensation in the form of damages to be awarded as a result of attack by wild
animals? Whether the State is liable under the Law of Tort for payment of compensation?
The respondent, was a resident of the District of Chamba and while going to her cattle shed for
the purpose of feeding her cows, was attacked by a black bear as a result of which she sustained
the serious injuries: like loss of complete eye sight, compound fracture of left mandible, nasal
bone, left forearm etc., her permanent disability was assessed at 100 % by medical authorities.
Thus a claim of Rs. 1,00,000 was made against the Divisional Forest Officer. It was averred that
the Divisional Forest Officer, under the scheme for the preservation of wildlife, had let loose the
Bear and other protected wild animals in the Jungle and unfortunately killing of such animals is
also prohibited by the State Government. As a result of the attack by the black Bear, the
respondent suffered grievous injuries and sustained 100% permanent disability. She has spent
about Rs. 50,000 on her medical treatment. In claiming damages, the respondent alleged that she
suffered due to the acts of omission and commission of the defendants.
The defendants on their part, denied liability for the damages, and for letting loose the black
Bear. They raised several objections to the petition, including one of jurisdiction. They further
claimed that Sec. 60 of the Wildlife [Protection]Act, 1972, provides that no suit, prosecution or
other legal proceeding shall lie against any officer or employee of the Central Government or
State Government for anything which is done in good faith. Hence this suit is hit by the above
section.
The Court while admitting the petition under the civil provision held that claiming damages for
the injuries sustained as result of attack by a wild animal would not be an action for damages
caused by an Act which has been done in good faith by the State or its officers/ employees under
Environment LawPage 24

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

the Act. Further the Court held that to succeed in claiming damages under the tortuous liability of
the defendant, the onus was heavily on the plaintiff to show that damages was sustained by her
due to some act of omission or commission of the defendants. The plaintiff had miserably failed
to discharge such onus. There is no provision under the Wild Life [Protection] Act, 1972 for
providing relief to a victim attacked by wild animals. Decision of the State Government to grant
gratuitous relief to victims was a welcome sign of a democratic Government, but providing for
such relief would not tantamount to admission of liability by the State, for tort or death or
injuries by wild animals.

CONCLUSION
Protection of Wildlife alone is not possible only by laws and Government. Despite all of these
laws and efforts, destruction of wildlife, illegal trade and poaching continues. Active cooperation
Environment LawPage 25

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

from the common public is also very necessary. It is now high time for us to understand the
gravity of the situation and act on its behalf. And this can only be achieved by our awareness and
by further stringent laws by the Government. We must not lose the national treasures in our rat
race of urbanization and modernization.
Wildlife conservation is the science of analyzing and protecting the Earths b i o l o g i c a l
d iv er s i t y, w h ic h i s

the variation

of life

forms

within

a given

ecosystem, or for the entire Earth. Biodiversity on the Earth today consists of m a n y m i l l i o n s
o f d i s t i n c t b i o l o g i c a l s p e c i e s . Wi l d l i f e c o n s e r v a t i o n i s t h e p r o c e s s o f
individuals and organization to protect and preserves the se s p e c i e s
through

conservation

education,

preservation

of

habitat

and

management of fish and wildlife. There are many wildlife conservation

societies and organizations that work tirelessly to save wild lands and wildlife through
international
attitudes

conservation
toward

and

nature

education.

and

to

These

protect

groups

strive

natural

areas

populations of plants and animals, including endangered species.

Bibliography

a) Law and Environment, By- P. LEELA KRISHNAN

Environment LawPage 26

to

change

and

wild

WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

b) Law and Environment, By- PARAS DIWAN
c) Environmental pollution and Law , by Krishna Iyer
d) Constitution of India , By M.P Jain
e) WWW.INDIAKANOON.ORG

Environment LawPage 27