The Author, Lakhan Gupta is 1st year student of University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU, New Delhi. He is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.

Poaching is referred to as illegal hunting, killing or capturing of wild animals. Since the 1980s, the term "poaching" has also been used to refer to the illegal harvesting of wild plant species. Poaching of animals for their body parts or skin has existed for as long as humans had wanted them. In other words, this market which flourishes on the basis of demand of goods has existed for a long time, legally speaking. This is because the meaning of the term illegal has changed over the centuries. Earlier it was legal for a monarch to go hunting for wild animals as sport although in modern times any sort of hunting, killing or capturing of wild animals is considered illegal. The only exception would be when a wild animal becomes dangerous to human life or property. Although morally speaking; hunting, capturing and instant killing of animals should only be done in case of self-defense or when it becomes dangerous to human life or property. Killing of animals in any other situation should be considered illegal as it is humans themselves who have led to decrease in wildlife all over the world.

Wildlife trafficking comes into view as poaching because for wildlife trafficking poaching of said wildlife is essential. Secondly, when poaching is done for any person other than oneself, it comes under the preview of wildlife trafficking. Hence, to discourage and ultimately discontinue these practices, it becomes essential to first find and detain or prevent the buyers of these living beings which automatically makes them a euphemistic king who only orders his soldiers to kill without sullying his hands. Both these activities lead to disruption of natural balance in the environment which further affect the natural cycle necessary for survival. For example, many communities in the world; often the poorest, depend on wildlife for survival. Some rural households depend on wild animals for protein, trees for fuel, and both wild animals and plants for natural cures. Poaching and wildlife trading takes away their means of survival, thereby, affecting their lives for the worse.

Another impact of these activities is on the interruption of natural system. Overexploitation of species affects the living planet in wider ways. Just as overfishing causes imbalances in the whole marine system, our complex web of life on earth depends on careful and thoughtful use of wildlife species and their habitats. Another reason to prevent poaching and wildlife trafficking is to preserve the natural species for our future generations so as to they too can enjoy the wonders of nature that our generation and the previous ones have enjoyed. Therefore, it becomes necessary to understand what the laws and regulations concerning poaching and wildlife protection are so that one does not carry out such activities, even accidentally.

Article 48-A of the Constitution says that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Thus the Constitution advises the State through directive principles to develop a mechanism and formulate Acts for the protection of wildlife. Article 51A (g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen of India to protect and improve the environment and have compassion for living creatures. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is one such Act passed by the Indian Legislation. The act is aimed at the following:

  • Prohibition of hunting of wild animals and birds and imposing punishment for violating the same.
  • Protection and management of wildlife habitats
  • Establishment of protected areas
  • Regulation and control of trade in parts and products derived from wildlife
  • Management of zoos
  • Providing security to animals that are not in danger of becoming extinct.

In layman terms, the act provides for protection of wildlife including both flora and fauna and as such empowers the State to make changes and amendments as it deems fit. It also empowers the State to declare any suitable area as a national park or a sanctuary and enact further acts that aid in wildlife protection. The act also empowers the State to punish the defaulters of the Act.

Hence, as one can observe, laws relating to wildlife protection have been implemented. However, this still has not aided in completely or even significantly affecting and discouraging the problems of poaching and wildlife trafficking. After all, it has been scientifically proven again and again how important it is to preserve the natural balance for the survival of not only humans but earth too as a living being. However, the greed of the few is again threatening the survival of the natural balance on earth.

One of the factors that poaching and wildlife trafficking has still not decreased significantly in India is that even though laws have been implemented the punishment provided under them is very insignificant when compared to the crime committed. Killing of animals can essentially be considered killing of a living being that one has neither helped create nor given birth to, thereby giving the hunter no right to kill the wildlife. This killing of a living being should be considered as killing of a human being as should be punished as such. However, quoting the Act:

  1. Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or who commits a breach of any of the conditions of any license or permit granted under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine which may extend to [twenty-five thousand rupees], or with both.
  2. Provided further that in the case of a second or subsequent offence of the nature mentioned in this sub-section, the term of the imprisonment shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees.

The above statements prove that as opposed to the punishment for culpable homicide, which includes life imprisonment and death penalty in the rarest of cases, killing of wildlife is only punished with seven years of imprisonment at the most.

Another factor is the widespread corruption among various Indians officials which forces them to turn a blind eye to any evil deeds occurring within their view.

One more reason that, I believe is the number one cause of poaching and wildlife trafficking is the lifestyle of people and their superstition that makes them form the demand market for these commodities. This means that this market of blood only exists because people are demanding these goods, either to show off, or for fascination or because of superstition.

Coming towards the judicial perspective, I believe that the fact this act is still being implemented and has not been repealed and still being amended proves that the judiciary of our country supports the act and its various sections. However, this does not prove that there is no scope for improvement even now. Scope of improvement always exists, however, the judiciary finds the need of this act to combat such heinous activities.

 Some of the major landmark cases against poaching or/and wildlife trafficking are:

  1. Wild Life Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors: In this case the accused was found guilty of trading in leopard skin and was hence sentenced as per the guidelines of Section 51 of the Act.  The accused had been arrested through a tip received by the officers.
  2. .R. Simon vs. Union of India: When the petitioner challenged the validity of the Act in the matter which prohibited trade in animal articles. This indirectly takes away the fundamental right to carry on any trade or business as specifies under the Wildlife Protection Act. The Delhi High Court, however, gave the judgment that since fundamental rights could be restricted in view of public interest, and because protection of wildlife is an act of public interests, hence the Act is constitutional.
  3. Pradeep Krishen vs. Union of India: This case is important as it challenges the mass belief that communities that live near forests would always function according to the natural order. The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order of the M.P. government which allowed the villagers and communities near the sanctuaries and national parks to obtain tendu leaves through contractors. The petition included the concern that many trees have been destroyed due to the activities of the villagers. The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to prohibit entry of any villager or tribal in the wildlife protecting areas.

From the above cases, one can argue that our country’s Executive and Judiciary both consider the protection of our country’s wildlife an important mission.

However, one can infer a few aspects of wildlife protection from the above cases. One major aspect is the displacement of the villagers or tribal communities from their birthplace, just because the area which was previously just a forest has now been declared a wildlife sanctuary or a national park. They are displaced because it is assumed that they may harm the wildlife. However, what people have to consider is that these tribes and villages have existed by maintain a symbiotic relationship with the forest and its wildlife where both the parties benefit. This is so because the when they use the forest and the wildlife for survival, they also try to carry out their activities in a way that causes the minimum damage and also try to replenish the forest’s resource and the wildlife population. Hence, these villages and tribes ought to be an essential part of the sanctuaries or national parks. Also instead of exploiting the wildlife, they might aid in prevention of activities such as poaching because many of these tribes always look out for the wildlife like a guardian spirit.

In conclusion, one can only say that the best way to fight heinous crimes such as poaching and wildlife trafficking are:

  • Firstly, education of people is a necessary step to ensure the survival of the natural order. This is because superstition related to ‘healing properties’ of animal parts is a leading cause of their demand. Secondly with moral education, people would also understand the consequences that their lifestyle has on the wildlife population. Education would also ensure that people understand the consequences of poaching and also the moral and human reasons of not taking any bribes.
  • Next, I believe that unless strict punishments similar to those provided in culpable homicide are provided in cases of poaching and wildlife trafficking, people would still not consider them a big crime.
  • Harsher laws for discouraging of corruption need to be implemented so that people would automatically fear before taking any bribes. A more lenient and positive method to reduce and ultimately eradicate the practice of corruption is by increasing the salaries of all government employees, thereby eradicating their need for corruption. I realize this method might put a toll on government resources but they would also help increase the same by slowly decreasing the amount of black money.
  • Lastly, I believe that the reintroduction of indigenous tribes [ where they have been displaced] in their sanctuaries or national parks may affect the rate of regeneration of the wildlife population for the better and the rate of activities such as poaching and wildlife trafficking for the worse. However, both these outcomes could be achieved only if sometime is given to the tribes to readjust to their birthplace.

Hence, one can say that India is recognizing the problem of decreasing wildlife population for the true threat it is and will in the future, just like the past and present, try to eradicate the problem as much as possible and hopefully one day completely eradicate it.

Picture Source :

 
Lakhan Gupta