Third Six Monthly Progress Report

(From September 2010-March 2011)

Topic of Research-Protection of Wild Animals in India: Problems and
Prospects
Work Done During the Six Months
During this period, I have consulted books, research articles and judicial
decisions of various courts related to my research topic. I have gone through various
legal online search websites. Some of them are having very relevant and useful
information and helpful in my research work. On the basis of these available materials
I have written one part of the research work which is Legal and Judicial Control of
Hunting of Wild animals in India.

George Turbervile, puts these words into the mouth of the hunted hare:
Are minds of men become so void of sense,
There they can joy to hurt a harmless thing?
A silly beast, which cannot make defence?
A wretch? A worm that cannot bite, nor sting?
If that be so, I thank my maker than,
For making me a Beast and not a man.1
(Turberville, (1576) 1908 pp. 176-78)
It describes what beast thinks about human being. Beast is very much right on
its thinking. This Homo-Sapiens which acclaimed himself of having much
intelligence and having reason is indiscriminately destroying the marvelous gift of
nature by hunting. Due to hunting, a number of wild animals are on the verge of
1 Matt Cartmill, Hunting and Humanity in Western Thought - In the Company of Animals,
Social
Research,Fall,1995http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_n3_v62/ai_17909898/?
tag=content;col1
1

extinction. Fluctuations in the population of wild animals occur due to various natural
as well as anthropogenic factors such as loss and degradation of habitats, poaching,
and incorporation of poisonous substances in the food chain etc. The largest single
factor in this regard is the indiscriminate hunting of wild animals. Poaching is nearly a
universal problem and a major threat to wildlife in India. Poaching and hunting are
going across India. Hunting is the practice of pursuing wild animals for food,
recreation, or trade.
Hunting may be classified into lawful hunting and unlawful hunting or
poaching. Lawful hunting is used for lawful purposes. It is used as an important tool
in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and
threaten the well-being of other species. It can also involve the elimination of vermin,
as a means of pest control to prevent diseases caused by overpopulation. The hunting
of vermin is permissible.2 Unlawful hunting or poaching is the killing, trapping or
capturing of the species contrary to applicable law. Hunting of scheduled wild animals
is prohibited. For hunting of scheduled wild animals, permission of competent
authority is required, who can grant permission of hunting for specific purposes with
specified conditions.
Factors Responsible for Hunting of Wild Animals
The largest single factor in the depletion of the wealth of animal life in nature has
been the civilized man operating directly through excessive commercial hunting, or
more disastrously, indirectly through invading or destroying natural habitats. 3 The
factors responsible for hunting of wild animals are numerous. Some of these are
mentioned as under:
1. Necessity of Food
Tribes are wholly dependent upon the forest produce and meat of the wild animals or
birds because they have no other source of livelihood. They are indiscriminately
killing the wild animals and birds for their food.
2 Section 9 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
3 R. Senniappan vs. The Wildlife Warden, Indira Gandhi Wild Life Sanctuary and National
Park, Pollachi-1 and another, MANU/TN /0241/199 Madras High Court.
2

2. Retaliatory Hunting
Wild animals are raiding the crops of farmers and even harmed their livestock.
For most farmers livestock and crops are their biggest treasures and source of
livelihood. A huge number of wild animals are being killed by farmers to defend
themselves and their livelihood.
3. Pleasure Hunting
Initially, pleasure hunting was a passion for royal families. It was a pleasure
sport for their entertainment, excitement and collecting trophies of wild animals. Now
the pleasure hunting is sought by the tourist.
4. International Demand for Wild Animals and Their Parts
Much of the recent upsurge in poaching has been attributed to increased
international demand for wild animals and their body parts in the world market.
Poacher in trophy hunting and ivory trade is gaining much monetary benefit. The fine
for hunting in comparison to benefit is very less. They easily save themselves from
arrest and conviction. The worldwide commercial exchange of wild animals and their
body parts are the major cause for hunting.
5. Lack of Awareness among People about Conservation of Wild Animals
Killing of wild animals are not regarded as a serious matter among people.
Most of the people want the forests to be protected but do not want wild animals in
their neighbourhood, by which they could lose their crops, livestock or sometimes life
of their near and dears. It is almost impossible to convince them of the reasons for
protecting these wildlife species except as a vague righteous belief in the rights of all
sentient beings to live.
6. Less Conviction Rate in Crimes Related to Wild Animals
The conviction rate in wild animals related crimes is very few. Meager cases
relating to hunting of wild animals came before the court and even in those cases, due
to weak prosecution evidences, accused easily save them from conviction. A study
conducted by the Wildlife Protection Society of India on the impact of wildlife laws
found that in the period of five years or so, not more than three people in India had
actually been imprisoned received jail sentences for crimes against even major species
3

such as the tiger and rhinoceros.4 The connivance exists between forest officials and
poachers have long been an accepted fact.
Impact of Hunting of Wild Animals
The impacts of hunting are ruinous. Several species are on the brink of extinction
due to indiscriminate hunting of wild animals. Since each and every species is an
important part of our ecosystem. Depletion of any species by hunting is bound to
adversely affect the whole ecosystem. The hunting of herbivores will directly
affect the carnivores that are dependent on them. Hunting for the purpose of meat,
skin, ivory, rhino horns, musk of deer etc. has considerably reduced wildlife even
to the extent of annihilation. Loss of biodiversity may make organisms including
humans, more vulnerable to infectious diseases and emergence of new illness.5
Meaning of Hunting & Wild Animals
Hunting means chasing and killing of an animal either for a food or for a sport. The
term hunting is defined in Act of 1972 in an inclusive manner. It includes:
(a) Killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to
do so;
(b) Capture, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or baiting of any wild or captive
animal and every attempt to do so;
(c) Injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal or in
the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles,
or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles.6
Taking of any part of the body of any captive animal or wild animal is also
included in the term hunting. Taking is also used as a synonymous to the term hunting

4 Bhat Sairam, Overview of the Legal regime relating to Conservation of Wildlife in India,
http://www.nlsenlaw.org/wildlife/articles/overview-of-the-legal regime-relating-toconservation-of-wildlife-in-India/ (visited on 12-10-2009)
5 Amkur Paliwal, Less Species, More Diseases, Down to
Earth,February,1-15,2011 p.30
6 Section 2 (16) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
4

in an International Convention.7 It means taking, hunting, fishing, capturing,

harassing, deliberate killing or attempting to engage in any such conduct. The term
trapping is also included in definition of term hunting. In Chief Conservator of Forest
(Wildlife) vs. Nisar Khan8, the Supreme Court observed that Trapping of birds comes
within the purview of the meaning of the term hunting. That is, if any person traps
the birds either for food or keeping it in captivity, this amounts to hunting within the
meaning of this Act.
It is clear that destruction of wildlife through manmade causes comes within
the purview of the term hunting. The question arises whether destruction of wildlife
due to other man made causes comes within the definition of hunting. The Tehri Dam
which is under construction is set to destroy twelve rare and endangered species. Is
constructing the dam covered under the definition of hunting? 9 In this regard, it is
submitted that the definition of hunting does not include the destruction of wildlife
through non-human act. Here the term hunting includes the destruction of wild
animals through human activities only.
In ordinary sense, wild animal means an animal which is not a domestic
animal. Animal includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, other chordates
and invertebrates and also includes their young and eggs.10 The animal which cannot
be kept in a house or on a farm is a wild animals. Wild animals are living in nature of
environment. Wild Animals means any animal specified in schedules I to IV and
found wild in nature.11

7 Article I, Section 1 clause (i) of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species
of Wild Animals, 1979.
8 AIR 2003 SC 1867 at p. 1870. The term traps also defined in International Agreement on
Humane Trapping standards, 1997 as- Traps means both killing and restraining mechanical
capturing devices, as appropriate.
9 Shyam Divan & Armin, Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India, 2nd edn. New
Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2001 P. 331.
10 Section 2(1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
5

Legal Control on Hunting of Wild Animals

Legal control on hunting of wild animals may be categorized into following sub
heads:
1. Legal Control before the Enactment of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
The killing of animals was prevented in Vedic period. The person who used to
commit such an act was called Yatudhan in Rigveda. The punishment for him was
that Lord had to cut off his heads with thy flame. In Yajurveda, it states that no
person should kill animals helpful to all and by serving them one could obtain
happiness.12 (Yajurveda, 5.47)
In sacred text, the hunting of animals for food is prohibited. It is elaborated:
Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to
sentient being is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss, Let him therefore,
shun the use of meat. (Manu Smriti. 5.48).13
The Hindu science of medicine, Ayurveda, regards the presence of animals,
birds and other creatures as necessary for a healing and balanced environment e.g.
animals give a prior warning of danger by changed behaviors or sounds. By the end of
Vedic and Upanishad period, Budhhism and Jainish came into existence, and the
protection of animals and birds were further strengthened by the various king
practicing these religions.
In beginning, though hunting of animals was prohibited but the sanction
behind it was only moral and not legal. The killing of animals was condemned. The
earliest codified law traces back to the 3 rd century BC when king Ashoka made a law
to deal with the killing of certain species. The detailed and insightful provisions
prohibiting hunting of animals were found in Kautilyas Arsthashastra. The
11 Section 2(36) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

12 O.P. Dwivedi & B.N. Tiwari, Environmental Crisis and Hindu Religion,
New Delhi, Gitanjali Publishing House. p. 47
13 Ibid p. 48
6

Supreintendent of slaughter-house shall punish, with the highest amercement, a

person for entrapping, killing or injuring deer, bison, birds or fish which are declared
to be under state protection or who are kept in reserved parks; the middle amercement
on householders for these offences in reserved park enclosures. 14 Even wild animals,
beasts, deer belonging to sanctuaries shall, when harmful, be killed or bound in places
outside the reserved forests.15
The early legislation in India relating to wildlife was limited to specific areas
and particular species. In 1873, Madras enacted the first wildlife statute namely The
Madras Elephants Preservation Act for the protection of wild elephants. The Act
prohibited the killing, injuring or capturing of wild elephants, except in self-defense
or under a license.16 The first effort by the Central Government came six years later
with the passing of the Elephants preservation Act of 1879.17
Indian Forest Act of 1878 empowered the Local Governments to make rules
from time to time to regulate killing or catching of elephants, hunting, shooting,
fishing, poisoning water and setting traps or snares in reserve forest Act of 1878 was
replace by the Indian Forest Act, 1927.This Act prohibits hunting, fishing, poisoning
of water, snaring or setting of traps in reserve forests. 18 However, killing or capturing
of wild animals by any person in defence of life or property is exempted from the
provision. In 1887, Centre enacted the Wild Birds and Game Protection Act which
empowered the Provincial Government Municipalities and Cantonment to frame rules
prohibiting the possession or sale of wild birds recently killed or taken, during
notified breeding seasons. In 1912, the Central Government enacted a broader
14 Supra 8 p. 24
15 Ibid p. 25
16 Prof. P.R. Trivedi & Prof. Gurdeep Raj, Environmental Wildlife and Plant
Conservation, New Delhi, Akashdeep Publishing house 1 st edn. (reprint
1997) p. 259.
17 Ibid
18 Section 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1972
7

legislation namely the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act which was extended to
most of British India. This Act was specified closed hunting seasons and regulated the
hunting of designated species through licences.19
2. Legal Control under the Wildlife (Protection) Act , 1972
The enactment of the wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is an historic moment in
protection of wild animals. All the wild animals listed under the schedules I, II, III &
IV of the Act are protected and their poaching amounts a punishable offence under
this Act. The Act does not seek to prohibit the hunting of all animals, but only their
unlicensed poaching.20 The Act prohibits hunting of wild animals except when
permission is granted to hunt in certain cases and for special purposes as provided in
the Act.21 As per the provision of section 11, the Chief Wildlife Warden for schedule I
wild animals and the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorized officer for schedules II,
III & IV wild animals may by order in writing and stating the reasons therefore,
permit any person to hunt any wild animals:
1. specified in schedule I if such wild animals has become dangerous to human
life or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery; or
2. specified in schedule II or schedule III, or schedule IV, if such wild animals
have became dangerous to human life or to property (including standing crops
on any land) or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery.
Further, it is also provided that no wild animal specified in schedule I shall be
ordered to be killed unless the Chief Wildlife Warden would satisfied that such animal
cannot be captured, tranquillized or translocated. Such captured animal should not be
kept in captivity.22 A captured wild animal shall as soon possible rehabilitate in the

19 Section 3 of the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912.

20, Ramya, Seetharaman The Law on Wildlife and Protected Areas in India: An
Analysis, Indian Journal of Environmental Law, vol. 2 June 2001 No.1 p. 63.
21 Section 9 of the Act, which prohibits hunting, reads thus: No person
shall hunt any wild animal specified in schedules I, II, III & IV except as
provided under section 11 and section 12.
8

wild. The process of capture or translocation of such animals shall be made in such
manner as to cause minimum trauma to the said animal.
Section 12 authorizes the chief wildlife warden to permit hunting of any wild
animals for the purpose of
(a) Education;
(b) Scientific research;
(c) Scientific management which includes
1. translocation of any wild animals to an alternative suitable habitat; or
2. population management of wildlife, without killing or poisoning or
destroying any wild animals;
(d) Collection of specimens for recognized zoos or for museums and similar
institutions; and
(e) Derivation, collection or preparation of snake venom for the manufacture of
life saving drugs.
The killing or wounding in good faith of any wild animal in defence of oneself
or of any other person shall not be an offence.23 However, when such defence
becomes necessary in committing of any act in violation of Act of 1972 or rule or
order made there under, this justification will not be available to that person. 24 For
deciding whether the animal is killed in self defence or not, the nature and ferocity of
the animal is relevant. 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
self-defence.25

22, Proviso of section 11 (1) (a) of The Wild life (Protection) Act, 1972,
inserted by Act No. 16 of 2003.
23 Section 11(2) of the WLPA, 1972.
24 Proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972
25 Trilok Bahadur vs. State of Arunanchal Pradesh, 1979 Cr.L. J. 1409
Gauhati High Court
9

Any wild animal killed in defence of oneself26 or hunted in contravention of

Section 11 or Section 29 (1) or Section 35(6) or any rule or order made there under 27
shall be the Government property. Chapter VI-A Consisting of sections 58A to 58Y,
authorized the state Government to forfeits the property derived from illegal
hunting.28
Judicial Control on Hunting of Wild Animals
For a long time since the enactment of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the
destruction of Wildlife and extinction of species are continue without paying any heed
to their importance. For the protection, conservation and preservation of wildlife, the
judiciary comes forward to draw the attention of executive towards their statutory
duty and obligation. The Courts on a number of occasions by judicial pronouncement
highlight the degradation and loss of wild animals.
The Court has made a remarkable observation that hunting has been a passion
for royal families. It was a pleasure sport for their entertainment, excitement and
collecting trophies of wild animals and may be, to prove their Rule over the jungle
also. The wildlife would have almost extinguished but for the end of the Raj with the
independence of the country. Some protective and prohibitory legislation had been
enforced; however, the situation remained the same. Now the pleasure hunting is
sought by the tourists. Remaining finishing work is done by the poachers. The
wildlife is still running for a safe shelter for their survival and existence. The plight of
the king of jungle can well be imagined. Vehicle owners are warned for their
employment, the tour operators for their business and hoteliers looking horrified by
empty rooms. All hoped pinned on their business. But, where the wildlife pleads for

26 Section 11(3) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

27 Section 39(1)(a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
28 Ch. VI-A was inserted into the Act by the 2002 Amendment Act (No. 16
of 2003)
10

mercy under such circumstances, the courts have to intervene and come to their
rescue.29
The Rajasthan High Court has held that to check large scale poaching, there
has to be a separate prosecution wing under the Act of 1972 for every National Park.
The legal assistance from the experts can be sought by the prosecutors. The State
Government, in consultation with the High Court, may establish special courts in
certain areas for prosecution for the offences under the Act of 1972. The investigation
and trial should be completed as expediously as possible. Reward should be given to
the person giving information about poachers. The private organizations may also
come forward for giving special awards to the employees for their exceptional work
in the interest of the wildlife and environment.30
In Emperor vs. Amirsahed Balarriya Patil31 case the question arise whether it
is necessary for the purpose of strict conservation or for the preservation of animals
which are becoming rare or for both, these purpose, to prohibit hunting and shooting
in a reserved-forest except under a license, so as to prevent a person from hunting and
shooting without a license a tiger or any other wild animal even for the protection of
his property or person. The court decline to express opinion on this point and said that
it is really a question of policy under the India Forest Act, 1878, which the local
Government have to consider and decide.32

29Girraj Goyal and ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and ors. (Rajasthan High Court)
MANU/RH/0294/2007 Ashok Parihar J.
30 Ibid.
31 MANU/MH/0174/1918.
32 5.25 clauses (i) of the Indian Forest Act (vii of 1878), 1878 empowered the local
Government to make rules to regulate killing, hunting, shooting etc. of wild animals in
reserve forest. In exercising this power, local Govt. made Rule 3 (a) which prohibits hunting
and shooting in reserve forest except under a license to be obtained from the Conservator of
forest.
11

In this case, the accused cattle were killed by a tiger and with a view to
prevent further injury to his property, went to the forest, tracked out and shot the tiger
without the license as required under Rule 3 (a) 33. Marten J. has held that accused has
committed a technical offence because he did not go into forest in the more ordinary
sense of hunting and shooting viz. for sport. He went for the protection of his property
for it appears to the un-contradicted that he had already suffered very serious loss in
his cattle and other animals by the attacks of it this particular tiger and therefore for
this offence a nominal penalty or fine is adequate.34
The reasoning given by the Court and use of word technical offence does not
seem to correct because though a person has a right to protect his life and property
including livestock but he could not get any right to kill the wild animals at the time
when that animal is not attacking on their life or livestock.
In another case35, the High Court of Allahabad had convicted the two accused
for hunting in a reserve forest without a permit as required under rules framed under
Section 25 (i) of the Indian Forest Act, (VII of 1878), 1878.
In Soman vs. The Forest Range Officer36, case on getting credible information
to the effect that wild animals are being hunted and removed from the reserve forest, a
Flying Squad Range Officer and a Mobile Squad Range Officer recovered from the
accused bag the dead body of a Giant Squirrel. There were marks of gun shots on the
face, head etc. of the animal. The abdomen of the animal was seen split and the
internal organs were found removed. On questioning the accused, he admitted that he
had shot down the animal from inside the reserve forest. On the admission made by
the accused a number of recoveries such as belt and cartridges, internal organs and
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Emperor v. Barkat Ali and Anr. (1917), MANU/UP/0100/1917, Pramada Charan Banerji,
J.
36 MANU/KE/0116/2008; Cr. L.J. 3418 (2008) V. Ramkumar J.
12

hairs of animal were made. The accused was convicted by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the Additional Session Judge; Fast Track-II confirmed the conviction.
In revision, before the High Court, the only one defense of the accused that
prosecution fails to prove that the animal in question was a Giant Squirrel. But the
prosecution presents a certificate that the animal in question was the Giant Squirrel
which is also known as the Malabar Giant Squirrel. Entry ID in Schedule II of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 pertains to the Giant Squirrels.37
The Court has observed that Section 9 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
prohibits hunting of any wild animal specified in schedules I, II, III & IV except as
provided under sections 11 & 12. Is there the accused was permitted by the chief
wildlife warden to hunt Giant Squirrel or cause the said animal to hunted as it had
become dangerous to human life or disabled or diseased beyond recovery within the
meaning of Section 11 of the said Act or that the Chief Wildlife warden had permitted
accused to hunt any wild animal for the purpose of education, scientific research or
scientific management as provided under Section 12 of the said Act? If not so, the
accused by contravening the prohibition under Section 9 of the Act committed an
offence punishable under Section 51 of the said Act.38
Mere having the possession of meat, flesh, leather of wild animals the
presumption of hunting of such animal cannot be drawn. In Rekhchand Son of
Ayodhya Dehriya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S.,39 where the prosecution
did not clearly stated that the accused killed or hunted the leopard. The only allegation
made against him is that the leather of a leopard was found in his possession. The
court has rightly said that in order to establish the commission of offence under
Section 9 of the Act, it is necessary to prove that accused hunted any wild animal
specified in schedules I, II, III & IV except as provided under sections 11 & 12 of the
Act. Merely by finding a person in possession of a leather of a wild animal, it cannot
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid
39 MANU/MP/0268/2008 Rakesh Saksena J.
13

be presumed that he hunted or killed the animal, especially in the absence of the
evidence that the leather was of a recently killed animal.
The Court found it helpless in cases where the prosecution fails to establish
the offence relating to wild animals committed by the accused. State of Himachal
Pradesh vs. Jai Singh and Ors.40, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that
where the true story remains hidden like an iceberg and in these circumstances, it is
difficult to hold the accused guilty of the offences charged as a reasonable doubt has
arisen in the authenticity of prosecution case to which a reasonable person honestly
and consciously would entertain as to the guilt of the accused, as such in my
considered opinion, the evidence led by the prosecution is not worth inspiring
confidence for the reasons aforesaid.
The Court has declined to issue direction where the State Government as well
as the Central Government has already been taken adequate steps for the protection of
wild animals. In Wildlife Protection Society vs. State of Andhra Pradesh41 case, two
writ petitions filed one by the Wildlife Protection Society and second by Visakha
Society for Prevention of cruelty to Animals. A number of prayers are made in these
two writ petitions including the prayer: . to issue a writ, order or orders, more
particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents:
(a) To constitute a special vigilance and enforcement cell to be administered
under the control of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi to
place a detailed report about the number of wild animals that were killed
and extracted the body parts like nails, skin, eyes, tail and other valuable
parts etc.;
(b) To effectively enforce the provisions of the wild life protection Act, 1972
by providing additional measures and precautions to prevent such gory
incidents in future in all the places of wildlife habitat;

40 MANU/HP 10399/2009, Surinder Singh J.

41 Writ petition Nos. 20928 C 21469 of 2000. A.P. H.C., Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan C.J. & I.
Venkatanarayana J.
14

(c) To take effective stringent steps to nab the culprits who are responsible for
the extinction of wild life and to prosecute the cases filed against the
persons, with dedication and zeal, commitment as expeditiously as
possible.
From the counter affidavit filed by the State Government and the Central
Government the court has satisfied with the several measures taken by them for
protection of wild life. The Court has observed that the State of Andhra Pradesh has
taken all precautionary measures to protect wildlife animals and for enforcement of
the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 under the scheme of
development of National Parks and Sanctuaries, Project Tiger, Project Elephant. The
court has further observed that since adequate steps have already taken for the
protection of wildlife and in fact the Govt. of India has also released sufficient finance
to the State Government no further direction need be issued in this regard.
In contrary to it, the Gujarat High Court has laid down a number of guidelines to be
followed by the Government for the protection of wild animals. 42 In Yogesh V.
Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat PIL is filed in the Gujarat High Court on the basis of
a newspaper report. A news was published in Times of India and Gujarat Samachar
that a leopard were nabbed from a village and a female leopard had refused to take
food and was starving on account of harassment, torture and trauma inflicted upon
her. On coming to know about the aforesaid news, petitioners visited the Indroda
Park, Gandhinagar, where the leopard was kept in isolated state. During the pendency
of the petition, the animal was died.
In this case, petitioner allegations are that the wild animals (female leopard)
died due to negligence and ill treatment by the forest authorities. They assert that the
female leopard was captured, when she was healthy. It was stated that majority of the
nails of the female leopard were removed while generally, the nails of the wild cats
cannot be removed because nails of the lion, tiger or leopard are imbedded in the bone
structure of paw. It was therefore, alleged that physical violence must have been
42 Yogesh Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat (2000) Gujarat High Court MANU/GJ/
1019/2000; (2001) 4 GLR 3022 D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. and C.K. Thakkar, J.
15

caused to her for removing nails and appropriate proceeding were required to be taken
against erring officers.
In the counter affidavits, the State has taken following defences(1) That female leopard was captured on an application of villagers and Sarpanch
of the village complaining that leopards were causing damage to the people by
killing their cattle.
(2) That female leopard was captured through a cage and care was taken to ensure
that village people may not cause injury to wild animals.
(3) The leopard was kept at safer place and no. of veterinary doctor treated her.
The female leopard had self inflicted injuries and in spite of best efforts the
leopard died due to bacterial infection inside the body.
(4) It was never the intention of the officers to cause injury to the wild animal.
The Gujarat High Court has observed that it is not in dispute that the female
leopard captured by the authorities in the instant case falls under Schedule I. It is,
therefore, beyond doubt that the animal could not have been captured except in
accordance with the order passed by the Chief Wild Life Warden in writing stating
reasons there for that the wild animal had become dangerous to human life or was
disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery. It is not even the case of the
authorities that the order was passed by the Chief Wild Life Warden. It is also not
their case that the leopard had become dangerous to human life or was disabled or
diseased as to be beyond recovery. Even according to the authorities, action was taken
in good faith in view of application made by village panchayats as well as village
people that 2-3 leopard were causing damage and destruction to cattles of villagers.
From the record and affidavit, however, the court is satisfied that there was no
bad faith or malafide intention on the part of the authorities in capturing the female
leopard. It is also clear that after the leopard was captured, due to self inflicted
injuries, she was medically treated. It is also on record that veterinary doctors and
experts were called and they tried their best to save the animal, but in spite of best
efforts, due to bacterial infection and falling of hemoglobin, unfortunately, the leopard
breathed her last. It was also stated that nails were not removed before death of female
leopard but after the death, they were removed and at present, nails are kept with the
16

Director of Ecological Education at Gandhi nagar. It, therefore, cannot be said that
female leopard was killed with a view to remove nails bald allegations made in the
petition, hence, are not believable and cannot be accepted.
The Court has, with a view to ensure that in future, the provisions of the Act
are observed in letter and spirit and no animal specified in Schedule I is captured
except in accordance with law, issue certain directions to the authorities which they
shall strictly observe whenever such occasion arise. The directions issued by the court
are as follows:43
1. No wild animal specified in Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
shall be hunted or cause to be hunted unless such wild animal has become
dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond
recovery;
2. An order of hunting of such wild animal shall only be passed by the Chief
Wild Life Warden in writing and stating reasons therefor;
3. The Chief Wild Life Warden shall issue a circular to all subordinate officers
throughout the State prohibiting hunting of any animal specified in Schedule I
without prior permission in writing by the Chief Wild Life Warden;
4. In case of hunting in accordance with Section 11 of the Act, as far as
practicable, the Chief Wild Life Warden shall ensure presence of a veterinary
doctor along with a team of executing officers so as to prevent injuries to such
animal, self inflicted or otherwise;
5. If an order is passed in respect of disabled or diseased wild animal, such
animal shall be release in the forest immediately after recovery or removal of
disability, as the case may be;
6. The Chief Wild Life Warden shall direct the executing officers to prevent
villages and curious bystanders from provoking and/or harassing such wild
animal in any manner whatsoever;
7. The State authorities shall take appropriate steps to train sufficient number of
veterinary doctors for giving treatment to disabled or diseased wild animals
specified in Schedule I such as lion, leopard, wild ass, etc.
8. The State Authorities shall organize awareness programmed by imparting
education to villagers and people living in and around forest areas and by
43 Ibid
17

making them aware to promote harmony between human being and nature in
such forest areas.
The court draws the attention of the Executives towards their statutory duty
and obligation and also tries to impress upon the public at large as to their role and
contribution for the protection of wild animals.
In Suo Motu vs. The State of Karnataka represented by the chief secretary and
ors.,44 the Karanataka H.C. took the Suo Motu the notice of press reports as to the
mysterious death of elephants in Mysore forest area and initiated the public interest
litigation. The court directed the state Govt. and the Central Govt. to take impugned
issue seriously; study, investigate, collect materials and furnish a report within a week
as to cause for the death of elephants, the lapse on the authorities concerned the action
taken against them for such lapses, if any, the remedial measures proposed to be taken
to prevent such disaster in future, the precautions to be taken to protect the wildlife
etc.
The government submitted a report and an Action plan before court suggesting
the recommendations for the short term as well as long term measures. As a short term
measure, it is recommended as follows:
(i)
(ii)

To fill up vacancies
To pay reasonable compensation both for the crop damage and human
injury, which should be made expeditiously by the Deputy Conservator
of Forests, which would avoid distress among the victims of crop

(iii)
(iv)

damages and human injury.

The facility for mobility should be increased.
Local volunteers should be engaged in the surrounding village to deal

(v)

with the human elephant conflict.

Fly Squads in the sensitive region should be provided with the wireless

(vi)
(vii)
(viii)

equipped vehicle, arms and ammunition.

Wildlife laws should be strictly enforced.
NGOs should be engaged to create awareness, and
Efforts should be taken to maintain the habitats of elephant.

44 MANU/KA/ 0275/2009; P.D. Dinakaran C.J. and V.G. Sabhahit J.

18

As a long term measures, it is recommended as follows:

(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)

Providing of Elephant proof trench and high voltage electric fences,

Introduction of barriers in a phased manners,
Change is cropping pattern;
Integrated land-use planning in elephant landscapes
Population management; and
Institutional strengthening and capacity building.

Dr. C.H. Bassappanavar, forester and wildlifer also filed an action plan and
the relevant portion of same reads as here under:
The Asian elephant is since facing severe threat due to natural causes and
human induced concerns, the following are the important suggestions in random order
that need defining direction by the High Court of Karnataka;
(1)

Ensure placement of trained anti-poaching squads in modern weaponry,

(2)

through State Police Academies to deal with hardcore criminals.

Appoint trained personnel in wildlife management and wildlife related laws to
deal with crimes, followed by prosecution in court of law, in action to manage

(3)

wildlife and their habitats in a professional way.

Need to empower forest, wildlife and Police officials with more legal teeth to
deal with hardcore offenders and to pronounce summary punishment, though
ban on trade in wildlife skins, ivory and other body parts are imposed, black

(4)

markets still thrive with penalties too small and rewards too great.
There is need to initiate brain-storming exercise to proclaim unlawful acts like
poaching, poisoning, electrocution, snaring of elephant big cats coming under
Schedule I of the wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as heinous crime.
The Court has issued the following directions for protection of wild animals:45

(1)

Necessary steps should be taken to constitute/reconstitute the wildlife advisory

(2)

board within a period of two months.

In order to effective control the growing increase of poaching in the
Sanctuaries/National Parks the Central Government as well as the Government
of States/Union Territories are to ensure that the forest are provided modern

45 Ibid
19

arms, communication facilities viz- wireless sets and other necessary

(3)

equipment in the regard.

The Report and the Action Plan for conservation of elephants and other
wildlife proposed by the State; and the Comprehensive Plan on HumanElephant conflict Mitigation by Dr. C.H. Bassappanavar, Forester and

(4)

Wildlifer are taken on record.

The State Government shall implement the long term measures as well as the

(5)

short-term measures as per the action plan proposed by the state Government.
Wherever there are narrow passages, which the elephant are using as corridor
touching the neighbouring states, the Government takes necessary steps to
widen such corridors by appropriate acquisition proceedings.
In this case, the direction issued by the Karnataka High Court is very much

effective in controlling the hunting of wild animals. There is a need of implementation

of the direction issued by the court in practice.
Conclusion and Suggestions:
It is obvious that the major threat for the Conservation of wild animals is the
indiscriminate hunting of wild animals. A huge number of wild animals are killed
regularly for various reasons. The major cause of hunting is the international demand
for wild animals and their parts. Though, for control of hunting of wild animals in
India much legislation has been enacted. In this direction, the enactment of the
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is an historical moment in wildlife Protection. This Act
has been amended from time to time to keep pace with the changing circumstances.
The judiciary has also come forward for the protection of wild animals. The various
High Courts in India issued a direction on various occasion for effective control of
hunting of wild animals. The directions issued by the Gujarat High Court 46 and
Karnataka High Court47 are much importance in the field of wild animals
conservation.
46 Yogesh V. Brahmbhatt vs. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/1019/2000; (2001) 4 GLR 3022
47 Suo Motu vs. State of Karnataka represented by the Chief Secretary and others
MANU/KA/0275/2009; P.D. Dinakaran CJ. And V.G. Sabhahit J.
20

But, in spite of such legislative and judicial response for control of hunting of
wild animals, the condition of wild animals is not satisfactory. Poacher performs their
activity regularly without fear of any penalties. There is no effective scheme to avoid
human animal conflict so as to prevent the Retaliatory Killing. No scheme is available
for providing compensation for the loss of standing crops caused by the wild animals.
Even all cases of human deaths and injuries are not compensated adequately. Wild
animals have lost public sympathy due to large number of cases pertaining to killing
of livestock.
For the prevention of hunting of wild animals the following steps should be
taken:
Regular patrolling in targeted areas and habitat of target species can only help
to curb the wildlife crimes.
Investigations, arrests and confiscations should be carried out in a complete
and timely manner.
Technical and legal Assistance must be provided in order to collective
evidences relating to wildlife offences so as to ensure that due legal process
will be proper timely and there will be highest probability, of a successful
prosecution. The state machinery should be serious about enforcing wildlife
laws, so as to ensure that poacher/violators do not escape from justice.
The greater media coverage relating to wildlife offences will reduce poaching
of wild animals through a heightened public awareness. The media serves as
watchdogs for legal proceedings to ensure minimum level of corruption. An
effort should be made so as the media coverage reach to a wider audience
through a series of TV and radio programs.
The setting up of special courts to try wildlife related offences is necessary for
effective implementation of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
A professional set-up for gathering intelligence on wildlife criminals for
effective and timely action is urgently needed at the states as well as the
central level.
To prevent retaliatory killing of wild animals the Govt. should provide special
funds to judiciously and effectively deal with compensation payments in all

21

states and union territories against assessed damage to life and property by
wild animals.
The government should initiate special schemes for rehabilitation of the
tribals whose livelihood wholly depend upon the killing of wild animals and
birds. For them, an alternate livelihood scheme is sin qua non for preventing
hunting.
The legislature should amend the law relating to wild animals enhance the
penalties and empower the wild life and police officials with more legality to

deal with hard core offenders.

NGOs and local volunteers should create awareness among people about
wild animals protection.

Signature of Supervisor

Signature of Research Scholar

(Prof. SukhPal Singh)

(Haribansh Singh)

Professor, Law School,

Research Scholar, Law School,

B.H.U. Varanasi.

B.H.U.Varanasi.

22