AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY

International Environment Law Project on-

The implications and scope of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

Submitted by-Ms. Meenakshi Prasad

8th Semester, B.B.A Ll.B. (H)
A3221512053
Amity Law School, Amity University

Submitted to- Ms. Shreya Sarkar

International Enviorment Law faculty

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe my greatest gratitude to my International Enviorment Law faculty, for allotting me this
interesting topic on the implications and scope of the Wildlife (Protection),1972 , she entertained
all queries and has continuously guided us regarding this project.
I would also want to acknowledge the legal library and IT lab for aiding me without which it
would have been difficult for us to complete this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Serial number

Topic

1.

Page Number
4

References
2.

5-6

3.

7-8

4.

8-11
11
12
13-16
16-`19

5.

20

6.

21

INTRODUCTION
The enormous and continuous decline of wild animals and birds in the context of India has been
a cause of grave concern.
Notably, some wild animals and birds in india already have vanished and others are in the danger
of being so.
The known paradises of the nature and wildlife is being eroded mainly due to human
encroachment. The wild birds and Animal Protection Act, 1912 has become wholly outmoded.
Where the state laws are found to be inadequate the Central Government, the Parliament with the
view to deal with the menace over the wild life passed a special law to be known as the Wild Life
(Protection) Act,1972
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted for protection
of plants and animal species. Before 1972, India only had five designated national parks. Among
other reforms, the Act established schedules of protected plant and animal species; hunting or
harvesting these species was largely outlawed.
The Act 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 which has its own wildlife act. It has six schedules which give varying
degrees of protection. Schedule I and part II of Schedule II provide absolute protection - offences
under these are prescribed the highest penalties. Species listed in Schedule III and Schedule
IV are also protected, but the penalties are much lower. Schedule V includes the animals which
may be hunted. The plants in Schedule VI are prohibited from cultivation and planting. The
hunting to the Enforcement authorities have the power to compound offences under this
Schedule (i.e. they impose fines on the offenders). Up to April 2010 there have been 16
convictions under this act relating to the death of tigers.

History of the act

The wildlife protection act,1972 is the first codified law in the country which consciously
inculcated law for wild life protection, it was enacted by the british in 1887. Though the act
prohibited the possession or sale of specified wild birds, it did not prohibit killing of the same.
The wild birds and animals protection act 1912 prohibitted the capture, killing, selling, buying or
possession of specified birds and animals.
In 1935, the act was amended and provincial governments declared an area to be an sactuary for
wild birds and animals.Thus, wildlife preserves in Kaziranga(1926) and Hailey(Now Corbett
National Park- 1936) were established.
However, wildlife laws varied from state to state and there was no effort at the national level to
consolidate a uniform law.
The wildlife Protection Act of 1972 was promulgated out of a long felt need to have a central
legislation dealing not only with hunting but also with the creation of protected areas, and the
control of trade in wildlife products. The act also provides for the establishment of State Wildlife
Advisory Boards.
Harming endangered species listed in Schedule I of the act is prohibited through out India.
Hunting other species like those requiring special protection(Schedule II), big game(Schedule
III) and small game(Schedule IV) is regulated through licensing.
A few species, classified as vermin(Schedule V) may be hunted without restrictions,
Schedule(VI) contained 6 plains which are protected by the law.
The act is administered by the wildlife wardens and their staff. In 1991 amendment brought some
radical changes, the amendment provided greater protection to wildlife and enhanced the
punishment for violation. As a result of this, non officials can directly take instances of violations
of the act to the courts.

Hunting of all specified wildlife has been completely prohibited.

No hunting and trapping licenses are to be issued and existing liceses are to be cancelled.
Commercial felling and exploitation of wildlife in sactuaries has been banned. The amendment
also banned trade in imported ivory and its products and transportation of wildlife or products,
without permission.
The legal protection is extended to plants whose cultivation, picking and dealing is regulated.
A member of a scheduled tribe(ST) can collect or possess any specified plant or part or
derivative for his bonafide use. For harmonization of the needs of tribals, and other forest
dwellings with protection and conservation of wildlife , it has been made mandatory to have
tribals representatives in the state wildlife board
The constitution of the Central Zoo Authority with specific functions is another innovation. The
authority can specify minimum standards in the zoos, evaluate the working of the zoos,
recognize or derecognize zoos, ensure maintenance and breeding of endangered species of wild
animals in captivity, coordinate training and research in zoos and provide technical and other
assistance for proper management and development of zoos on scientific lines.
The rapid decline of Indias wild animals and birds, one of the richest and most varied in the
world has been a cause of grave concern.

Definitions under section 2 of the act

1. "animal" includes amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles, and their young, and also
includes, in the cases of birds and reptiles, their eggs.
2. "animal article" means an article made from any captive 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 an article made therefrom.
3. "hunting" includes
(a) capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring, or trapping any wild animal, and every attempt
to do so
(b) driving any wild animal for any of the purposes specified in sub clause
(c) injuring, destroying or taking any body part of any such animal, or in the case of wild
birds or reptiles, disturbing or damaging the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles.
4. "taxidermy" means the curing, preparation or preservation of trophies.
5. "trophy" means the whole or any part of any captive or wild animal (other than vermin)
which has been kept or preserved by any means, whether artificial or natural. This
includes:
(a) rugs, skins, and specimens of such animals mounted in whole or in part through a
process of taxidermy
(b) antler, horn, rhinoceros horn, feather, nail, tooth, musk, eggs, and nests.
6. "uncured trophy" means the whole or any part of any captive animal (other than
vermin) which has not undergone a process of taxidermy. This includes a freshly killed
wild animal, ambergris, musk and other animal products.
7. "vermin" means any wild animal specified in Schedule V.

8. "wildlife" includes any animal, bees, butterflies, crustacean, fish and moths; and aquatic
or land vegetation which forms part of any habitat

Landmark Cases
Courts in India had the opportunity to examine the provisions of wildlife Protection Act on
several occasionsIn, State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan1,
The supreme court observedThe preservation of fauna and flora, some species of which are getting extinct at an alarming
rate, has been a great and urgent necessity for nthe survival of humanity and thgese laws reflect a
last hyphen-ditched battle..
In, Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. UOI2
The SC saidIt is odd that the state government while professing to protect the environment by means of
various notifications and declarations should at the same time permit the degradation of the
environment by authoritizing mining operations in a prohibited area.
The court issued interlocutory orders prohibiting these operations as they were detrimental to the
protection of wildlife in the Sariska Sanctuary.
In Animal and Environmental Legal Defence Fund, The supreme court stressed on more cautious
and vigilant measures and laid down specific controls on fishing within a national park.
In, Nagaraholi Budakattu Hakku Sthapana Samithi v. State of Karnataka3,

1 (1988) 4 SCC 655

2 AIR (1992) SC 514
3 AIR 1997 Karnt 288

A well reputed hotelier began renovating cottages and a reception center within the Pench
National Park to set up a world class forest lodge. The state government considered the project as
necessary to encourage eco-tourism. The hotelier claimed to having spent above Rs 60 million on
the project.
Later, environmentalists and tribal welfare NGOs urged the state government to scrap the project
as it interfered with the ecological balance in the national park and welfare of the tribal
community.
The High Court found that, there was violation of section 20 read with section 35(3) of the Wild
Life Protection Act and section 2(III) of the Forest Coservation Act. The prior approval of the
central government has not been obtained, the court stopped the hotelier from proceding with the
renovation work.

Conclusion

Despite stringent provisions in the wild life act, whgich strictly proihibits hunting and any trade
in wildlife parts or articles, conviction of offenders is a rare scenario.
Strict implementation and enforcement of laws is the need of the hour.
Penal provisons are required to be made more stringent and proper enforcement is to be
guaranteed.
Further , many decisions of the courts on such cases took a lot of time to be delivered and
offenders are often let off on technicalities.
Thus, there is a need in the wildlife act for a provision for a fast track court or for fast trails with
respect to wildlife cases or establishment of special wildlife courts.
In most of the protected areas as well as in some reserves there exists conflicts between
authorities and the locals. As a step to harmonize these conflicts, an incentive to the local people
needs to be started by inserting provisions in the wildlife act.
For example, To harmonize such kinds of conflicts, a Buffer Zone area could be created and up
to 50% of the total income of the related parks can be provided to the Buffer Zone Development
Committee who shall work towards peace settling and development of such zones.