Academic Article by Cheena Khanna
INTRODUCTION
“The universe along with its creatures belongs to the Lord. No creature is superior to any other. Human beings should not be above nature. Let no one species encroach over the rights and privileges of other species.”
Many individuals mistakenly believe that India lacks effective animal protection regulations. On the contrary, we have some of the strictest wildlife and habitat protection laws in the world. It is critical that all conservationists become aware of these regulations so that they can successfully participate. Before any conservation measures can be tried in any landscape, it is also necessary to understand whose institutions manage land in India. To interact with the appropriate authorities or agencies, one must first determine the legal status of the land.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides a legal framework for the conservation of animals, forests, and the environment. The right to a clean and healthy environment is part of the right to life. The Directive Principle of State Policy, under Article 48A, imposes a nonbinding responsibility on the state to maintain and conserve the environment, as well as forest and wildlife. Article 51A(g) imposes a non-binding responsibility on residents to save the country's forests, wildlife, rivers, and animals.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 ('The Act') governs wildlife conservation and protection in India. The Act arose during a period in India when environmental law was quickly evolving, thanks in part to judicial activism. All prior legislation, such as the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act of 1912, was insufficient, therefore the Act was adopted. The new Act is comprehensive, filling up all of the holes left by previous legislation. However, there are still significant inadequacies in the current legislation. Between the theoretical law and its actual application, there is a void. Furthermore, due to bureaucratic meddling, the Act's goal has been weakened.
The WLPA provides for several categories of Protected Areas/Reserves:
▪ National Parks
▪ Wildlife Sanctuaries
▪ Tiger Reserves
▪ Conservation Reserves
▪ Community Reserves
National parks and Tiger Reserves are more severely protected by law, permitting only limited human activity for the sake of animal protection. In National Parks, grazing and private tenurial rights are prohibited, however, they may be permitted in sanctuaries at the discretion of the Chief Wildlife Warden. In both national parks and animal sanctuaries, the modified WLPA prohibits commercial exploitation of forest products, and local populations can only collect forest products for legitimate purposes. Within or outside protected areas, no wild mammal, bird, amphibian, reptile, fish, crustacean, insects, or coelenterates specified in four Schedules of the WLPA may be hunted. Hunting is punishable by imprisonment for a term ranging from three to seven years, as well as penalties of not less than 10,000 rupees if convicted.
Under the WLPA, two new types of protected areas have been added: community reserves and conservation reserves. These two categories provide local people, stakeholders, and civil society more power, as well as the possibility to safeguard numerous places of conservation significance that can't be recognized as wildlife sanctuaries or national parks. The law bans the destruction or diversion of animals and their habitat by any way unless it is for the aim of boosting or improving management, which is chosen by the state government in collaboration with the National and State Boards for Wildlife.
The WLPA has detailed processes for dealing with legal rights in proposed protected areas, and any land or interest acquired under this legislation is considered a public purpose acquisition. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, however, requires compliance with numerous stipulations pertaining to tenurial and communal rights.
Case Laws:
⮚ State of Bihar v, Murad Ali Khan, Farukh Salauddin (1988) is a case that dealt with poaching and hunting of elephants for the smuggling of ivory tusks.
⮚ Balram Kumawat v. UOI (2003), the court re-emphasized that the act puts a complete ban on the trade of African elephant ivory
⮚ Sansar Chand v. the State of Rajasthan (2010) highlighted the detrimental effect legal trading and commerce of wildlife has caused to the environment and the same is not effectively curbed despite the prohibition under the Wildlife Act.
⮚ Mahaveer Nath v. UOI (2019), the constitutional validity of Sections 9 and 11 was challenged on the ground that the restrictions mentioned under those Sections deprived the petitioner of his right to livelihood.
CONCLUSION
The Act is broad, covering practically every element of animal protection and conservation. The law's comprehensiveness is demonstrated by the fact that it provides for the creation of several committees and bodies, such as the Tiger Conservation Authority, to exercise powers with particular purposes. It also permits the delegation of authority. However, because the powers are scattered, such a split of powers to multiple bodies can lead to issues of accountability. Too many committees and authorities tend to diminish the act's goal; the more authority is split, the more likely it is to fail to oversee it. A robust regulatory framework at the center, which may generate checks and balances within the sub-framework, is required. Because forming several committees and delegating tasks to various agencies would not result in wildlife protection until the Act's implementation improves. There is also a need for a solid mechanism to safeguard animals from poaching and hunting.
REFERENCE
❖ https://www.conservationindia.org/resources/the-legal-framework-for-wildlifeconservation-in-india-2
❖ https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-wildlife-protection-act-1972-and-its-impact-in-protectingwildlife-in-india/
❖ https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/wildlife-conservation-in-india