WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972
Introduction
In 1972, India adopted a comprehensive national
law, the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 intended
solely to protect the wildlife.
42nd Constitutional Amendment Act ,1976 moved
wildlife and forest from the State List to Concurrent
list.
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 provides the statutory
framework for protecting wild animals, plants and
their habitats.
The Act adopts a two pronged conservation
strategy:
1. Specified endangered species are protected
regardless of location,
2. All species are protected in specified areas called
sanctuaries and national parks.
The constitution (Forty - Second Amendment) Act,
1976, introduced Entries 17 - A and 17 - B in the list
III, which empowered the Parliament to enact laws
relating to Wildlife
The Indian Constitution, under Article 48-A, has provided that “the
State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”. It is a
directive and constitutional pointer to the “State”. Further, List III
of Schedule VII provides the following entries under which the
Centre and the States both can make laws:
a. Entry 17 Prevention of cruelty to animals
b. Entry 17-A Forests
c. Entry 17-B Protection of wildlife and birds
d. Entry 29 Prevention of the extension from one State to another of
infectious or contagious disease of pests affecting men, animals
or plants
In the exercise of the above powers, Indian Parliament has
passed the following major Acts to protect, preserve and
improve wildlife:
a. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
b. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
c. Biological Diversity Act, 2002
Before the passing of the abovementioned Acts, there were
other laws in existence to protect wildlife. The Penal Code,
1860 (IPC), though it has no specific provision relating to
wildlife, but it defines the term “animal” and declares
maiming, killing of animals as an offence and punishable
under various sections.
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WORLD
WIDE FUND-INDIA V. UNION OF INDIA, (2013) 8
SCC 234
It has been made clear by the Supreme Court that
Article 21 of the Constitution protects not only the
human rights but casts an obligation on human
beings to protect and preserve a species becoming
extinct, conservation and protection of environment
is an inseparable part of right to life.
It is the duty of the State to protect wildlife and
conserve it.
The WLPA serves the “constitutional purpose” mentioned under
Articles 48-A and Article 51-A(g) as it prohibits hunting of wild
animals except in certain limited circumstances.(Sansar Chand v.
State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79.)
The court has declared that the provision of the Wildlife Act are
salutary and are necessary to be implemented to maintain
ecological chain and balance. Centre for Environmental Law,
World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 234
The first and foremost purpose of this Act is to protect the habitats
of wild animals.
As a sequel to it, various national parks and sanctuaries have been
established to ensure greater protection to wildlife.
We have a network of 99 national parks, 515 wildlife sanctuaries,
43 conservation reserves and four community reserves in different
biogeographic zones. Some special provisions also aim to preserve
endangered species like Project Tiger, Gir Lion Sanctuary,
Himalayan Musk Deer Project, etc.
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD V.
UNION OF INDIA, (2012) 4 SCC 362
It has to be noted that “poaching” of wildlife is an organized international
illegal activity which generates massive amount of money. Moreover, India
is a signatory to both the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the UN Convention Against
Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC).
Wildlife is under threat of almost extinction, mainly due to organized
poaching, its international links and due to destruction of habitat. Thus, the
Act has been passed “to ensure the ecological and environmental security of
the country.”
Objectives
To safeguard and develop the environment
To carry out the conclusions reached at the 1972 United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm
To punish anyone who harms the environment
Enforcing environmental regulations in locations not covered by existing
legislation
Give the central government complete authority to enact severe
environmental protection measures
The main purpose of the law is to ensure the protection of wildlife, birds,
and plants
The law gives the federal government the power to declare certain areas
such as a sanctuary or a national park, wildlife hunting bans and bring
punishment for their violation
Scope
It extends to Whole of India except to the
state of Jammu and Kashmir
Definitions
Section 2 (16)- Hunting
Section 2(21)- National Park
Section 2(24A)- Protected Area
Section 2 (25 B)- Reserve Forest
Section 2 (26)- Sanctuary
Section 2 (37)- Wildlife
Section 2 (39)- Zoo
Chapter –III
Section 9
Section -11
Section 12
Prohibition of Hunting
Section 9 of the WLPA seeks to protect wildlife by prohibiting
hunting.
However, prohibition of hunting under WLPA is not absolute.
It is permitted under certain specified circumstances and
subject to the prescribed procedure.
Conditions under which hunting may be permitted vary
according to the schedules.
There are four schedules in WLPA and wild animals and birds
have been included in these schedules according to the
degree of protection required for such animals and birds.
Hunting of wildlife included in Schedules I, II, III
and IV requires the previous permission of the
Chief Wildlife Warden appointed by the state
government as per section 4 of the Act.
WLPA requires that the Chief Wildlife Warden
should make such order in writing and state the
reasons for issuing the order.
Stringent restrictions are applicable in the
case of wildlife included in Schedule I.
Permission to hunt Schedule I wildlife can be
issued in two situations:
1. If any animal has become dangerous to
human life; or
2. if any animal is so disabled or diseased as to
be beyond recovery.
Wildlife included in Schedules II, III and IV, hunting may
be allowed:
If animals have become dangerous to human life or to
property (including standing crops on any land); or
if an animal is so disabled or diseased as to be
beyond recovery.
Killing or wounding of any wild animal to protect life is
not an offence. However, in such cases, the killed or
wounded wild animal shall be the property of the
Government
The Chief Wildlife Warden also has the power to permit hunting of an
animal in the Schedules for limited purposes –
1. Education,
2. Scientific research,
3. Collection of specimens, for recognised zoos, for museums and similar
institutions;
4. Derivation, collection or preparation of snake-venom for the manufacture
of life saving drugs.
In the case of wildlife included in Schedule I, such permission can be
granted with the previous permission of the Central Government, and in
respect of any other wild animal, previous permission of the State
Government is required.
Case
Chief Forest Conservator v. Nisar Khan [AIR 2003 SCW 1333]
Chapter –IV
Protected Areas
Chapter IV of the WLPA provides for “protected areas” to
protect the natural habitats of wildlife by identifying
such habitats and declaring them as wildlife sanctuaries
and national parks.
Protected Areas include Sanctuaries and National Parks
but following an amendment to WLPA in 2006, the new
categories of Conservation and Community Reserves
are also included as Protected Areas.
The State Government is required to follow certain procedure to declare any
area as a Sanctuary or a National Park.
WLPA requires the government to determine existing rights of any person in or
over the land comprised within the limits of such proposed protected area
before it is finally declared as a Protected Area.
In cases where the rights of any person are confirmed by the concerned district
collector, the State Government has three options:
(a) declare the Protected Area after excluding such land;
(b) acquire such land by paying compensation; or
(c) allow continuance of rights within the Sanctuary
Provisions of Sanctuary
Declaration of area as sanctuary
Restriction on entry in sanctuary
Grant of Permit
Destruction etc., in a sanctuary prohibited without a permit
Differences
National Park Sanctuary
NP is a protected territory i.e. The Wildlife Sanctuary is a natural
formed by the governing bodies to habitat that is run by the governing
preserve wildlife and evolve them. bodies or private organizations that
protect certain species of animals and
birds.
A National Park preserves fauna,
flora, species, historic objects, Wildlife Sanctuary preserves birds,
landscape etc. animals, insects, reptiles etc.
The aim of Wildlife Sanctuaries is to
The aim of NP is to protect historic ensure that the population of the
and natural objects as well as the wildlife and their respective habitats
are sustained.
wildlife of the territory.
National Park Sanctuary
Highly restricted & people Restrictions are relatively
cannot randomly access it. less and it is open to people.
Official permission is Official permission is not
required. Boundaries are required . Boundaries are
fixed by the administration. not fixed.
Example: Example:
1. Corbett National Park 1.Periyar Wildlife Sanctuary
2. Nagarhole National Park 2.Bandipur Wildlife Sanctuary
3. Bandhavgarh National Park
4. Ranthambore National Park
Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union
of India (1992 Supp (2) SCC 448)
In this case, a social action group, a voluntary organization,
filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of
India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, claiming
that the Rajasthan State Government had issued a number of
Notifications declaring the Sariska Tiger Park as a sanctuary,
however, the petitioner was of the view that there was
widespread illegal mining activity going on in the aforesaid
area and the State Government had issued licenses for
carrying out such mining activities.
It was held by the petitioner that there were a number of
notifications issued previously which prohibited all sorts of
mining activities in that area, however, the State
Government of Rajasthan granted hundreds of licenses for
conducting mining activities.
The mining of marble, dolomite and other materials was
being carried out which was deemed to be in total
contravention to the guidelines which were laid down in the
notifications which were issued previously.
The petitioner contended that these mining activities
impaired the environment and the wildlife within the park.
The Court then decided to appoint a committee which would
study and understand the objective of the various acts and
Notifications which were issued in respect of the particular
protected area.
The committee found that there were 215 mines which
completely fell outside the areas which were deemed to be
declared as protected forest, while the other 47 mines fell
partially under the ambit and partially outside the ambit of
the areas declared as protected forest.
The Court was of the view that this was a simple
matter wherein it was the job of the court to simply
ensure whether the laws which were enacted in that
particular area were being adhered to or not and it
was the duty of the State to protect the environment
and the ecology of the impugned area in question.
The Supreme Court took cognizance of this situation and passed an order
which directed that no mining operations could be conducted any further
within the area which was demarcated as, “protected”.
It also went on to further appoint a Committee headed by a retired judge
to ensure that the wildlife within the park is secure.
It directed that all the mining activities which were conducted in the mines
which were located outside the protected forest areas, but within the
territorial boundaries of the tiger reserve could continue for a period of
four months, however, if no permission is obtained by the miners within a
period of four months, then mining activities in the entire area which was
declared as a tiger reserve had to be stopped for good.
Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v.
Union of India, AIR 1997 Del 267
The petitioners were challenging the ban which was
imposed upon them by the authorities for them
having possession of mammoth ivory and articles
made from mammoth ivory.
The Petitioners in this petition which they had filed
also challenged certain amendments which were
made in the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 whereby
the trade of imported ivory articles was banned.
The main contention of the Petitioners in this case was that
they did not fall under the necessary provisions as provided
under the ambit of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and they
were not even covered by the Amendment Act No. 44 of
1991.
The Petitioners were mainly aggrieved by the ban which was
imposed by the Wildlife Protection Amendment Act, 1991,
which curtailed them from trading and storing in ivory which
was extracted from African Elephants.
They contended that they dealt in the ivory which was
legally sent to India and they were simply traders, causing
no harm thereby to the African Elephants.
They challenged the constitutional validity of the Wildlife Protection
Act, 1972 and the Wildlife Protection Amendment Act, 1991 on the
grounds that it violated their right to practice any profession, or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business as guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
A full bench of the Delhi High Court presided over this case and held
that a ban which was imposed, imposing restrictions upon the sale
and the trade of ivory products cannot be deemed to be regarded as
unreasonable and unconstitutional.
The Court was of the view that the restriction which was imposed
under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the
Amendment to the Act was in consonance to the provisions of the
Constitution and were not ultra vires the provisions of the
Constitution.
The restriction which was imposed upon the sale and the
storage of ivory goods was a reasonable restriction on the
fundamental right to carry on business.
The Court was of the opinion that a law which is made to
protect an animal who is at the brink of extinction, cannot be
regarded as ultravires to the provisions of the Constitution
and the said amendment was done keeping in mind the
protection of the endangered species.
The Court held that such a law cannot be deemed to be
regarded in contravention to the provisions guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Pradeep Kishan v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 599 ; AIR
1996 SC 2040
Facts:
The petitioner, an environmentalist filed petition
under article 32 of the Constitution of India
challenging the legality and constitutional validity of
an order passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh
permitting collection of tendu leaves from
Sanctuaries and National Parks by villagers living
around the boundaries thereof with the avowed
object of maintenance of their traditional rights.
The petitioner contended that this act of the State
Government is ultra vires the provisions of the Wild
Life Protection Act, 1972, as well as the petitioner's
fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14 and
21 of the constitution and is even otherwise
inconsistent with articles 48-A and 51-A (g) of the
Constitution.
Court in this case noticed that the procedure for acquisition of
rights of villagers/tribals living in the vicinity of the proposed
Sanctuaries and National Parks under sections 26-A and 35 of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 had not yet been
undertaken by the Government and the State Government
was not in a position to bar the entry of the villagers/tribal
into the proposed area.
Court did not quash the order of the State Government
permitting the collection of tendu leaves from Sanctuaries
and National Parks by villagers/tribals.
Supreme Court directed :
1. To issue the final notification before barring the
entry of villagers in the National Park and;
2. To institute an enquiry for those who claim a
right in or over any land proposed to be
included in the Sanctuary/National Park.
Court further noticed that till such procedure is
complete, the State Government cannot bar the
entry of villagers/tribals into the proposed area,
unless such entry was likely to result in destruction
or damage to the environment, flora and fauna and
the Wild Life of the area.
Court has shown its concern for the protection of
the forest cover in our country.
