Jungle book…..Chanpreet Khurana
Legislation around protecting wildlife, including vulnerable plant species, has been through at least seven rounds of amendments since 1972, when the Wild Life (Protection) Act was first introduced. But we have to go a long way in implementing the laws
Legislation around protecting wildlife, including vulnerable plant species, has been through at least seven rounds of amendments since 1972, when the Wild Life (Protection) Act was first introduced. But we have to go a long way in implementing the laws
Wildlife law is moving fast to catch up with offenders. Illegal trade in Schedule I and even some Schedule II animal products may soon attract a penalty of up to Rs 50 lakh, up from a maximum fine of Rs 10,000, if the proposed Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill 2010 is passed into a law. While Schedule I animals include elephants, lions, tigers and cheetah, Schedule II animals include Himalayan Black Bears, sperm whales and the King Cobra.
Legislation around protecting wildlife, including vulnerable plant species, has been through at least seven rounds of amendments since 1972, when the Wild Life (Protection) Act was first introduced. That year, the legislatures of 11 states empowered Parliament to pass legislation on what was then a state subject, to expand the scope of the outmoded Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912. The subject was moved to the concurrent list in 1976, through the 42nd Amendment to the Indian Constitution.
Environmental historian Mahesh Rangarajan says the early 1970s saw significant developments in wildlife preservation. Export in big cat skins had already been banned from India in 1969. In 1972, the wildlife law was passed in both Houses. The terms of the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species were agreed to by 80 countries in April 1973, and India became a signatory to the convention. That was also the year Project Tiger was launched in India.
In 1976, at the height of the Emergency, the Wildlife Act was altered to bring the subject under the concurrent list. The 1982 amendment made provisions for the ‘scientific management’ of animal populations, including through their capture and transportation. The re-population of the high-profile Sariska Tiger Reserve with big cats from the nearby Ranthambore National Park in 2008 was facilitated by this amendment.
In 1991, the Act was again amended, this time including special chapters on the protection of specific plant species and on the regulation of zoological parks. It was also the beginning for the Act to recognise the rights of Scheduled Tribes and forest dwellers on the land and its produce. It took an additional 15 years for the Forest Rights Act to come into force, in 2006.
In 1991, Project Elephant was also launched. In 1997, the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) was formed by an Act of Parliament to look into cases where environmental clearance may be needed in some restricted areas. On October 19, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was launched to determine all matters relating to the environment. NEAA will now be subsumed within this body. Rules governing the forfeiture of property derived from illegal trade and hunting were laid down in the 2002 amendment.
In just the past three years, the environment ministry has launched the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, the National Biodiversity Action Plan and the NGT. The ministry is also working on the introduction of a National Environment Protection Authority for the effective implementation of environmental laws.
To be sure, sceptics doubt the usefulness of launching new programmes. Says Supreme Court advocate and founder of the Enviro-Legal Defence Firm, Sanjay Upadhyay: The problems that existed with NEAA still persist. Where is the sense in starting another green tribunal without first addressing those concerns? Upadhyay feels that it may have been more productive to use the existing nationwide network of lower courts and equip the judges to handle environmental cases.
Supreme Court advocate MC Mehta, who has been active in cases involving environmental law and social justice for at least 25 years, agrees that implementation of the existing laws leaves much to be desired. At the same time, he feels the legal framework for redressal has come a long way since his first Supreme Court case in 1984.
When Mehta first approached the bench for a preliminary hearing in the Taj Mahal pollution case, he got a less than lukewarm reception. The judges had almost summarily rejected the petition on grounds that India was a poor country and the Mathura refinery could not be closed down simply to protect a monument, recalls Mehta.
Mehta says back then he had to fall back on the economic and cultural importance of the Taj Trapezium to even get his foot in the door and get a hearing. The case was finally decided in the mid-1990s, with the apex court ordering the industries to install pollution control devices or risk closure. Clearly, we have come a long way in enacting laws, but we still have a longer way to go in implementing them.