THE WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972

HUNTING OF WILD ANIMALS

AND
PROTECTION OF SPECIFIED PLANTS
Hunting of Wild Animals
• The hunting of wild animals is prohibited under Section 9 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act except when permission is

granted in certain cases for special purposes as specified in Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

• Section 11 of the Act provides that CWW may grant hunting permission:—

i. where the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) is satisfied that the wild animal specified in Schedule I of the Act has

become dangerous to human life or disabled or diseased beyond recovery.

ii. where CWW is satisfied that such animal cannot be captured, tranquilized or trans-located and such captured animal

cannot be kept in captivity.

• The permission so granted by the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) or the authorized officer by him should be in writing

stating the reasons for granting such permission.

Cases
• In I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu ((1992) 1 Mad LR 355 ), the landowners living in
hilly tracts of Tamil Nadu had complained that the animals listed in Schedule I of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act were damaging their standing crops and property and therefore,
the Act unreasonably prevented the hunting of these animals.

• The High Court rejected their plea and held that the Act did not deprive the land-holders
of their property and their complaint was without any firm ground and therefore, their
right to hunt such animal could not sustain in the larger interest of wildlife protection
envisaged by the Act.
Cont…

• In a similar case, namely Sukh Dev Singh Rai vs. Union of India (1993 (60)
Del LT 319)  the petitioner, a farmer of Ghaziabad complained to the High
Court of Delhi that wild boars and blue bulls (Neelgai) were frequently
damaging their crops and, therefore, their hunting/killing be permitted.

• The High Court dismissed the petition holding that wildlife was under
concurrent list and only the Parliament had the right to enact or amend the
law in this regard.
Cont…
• In Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) vs. Nisar Khan (1979 Cri LJ 1404) the
petitioner was engaged as a dealer in birds which were bred in captivity. He applied
for renewal of his trade license which was rejected by the licensing authority on
ground of carrying on business of breeding the captive birds essentially involved
hunting, which was prohibited under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Supreme
Court upheld the rejection of the license and held that hunting and trapping, both were
prohibited under Section 9 read with Section 2(6) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and
the birds for breeding could no be procured without resorting to hunting and trapping.
• In the case of Tilak Bahadur Rai vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh [(2003) 4 SCC
595] the tiger was killed by the appellant in exercise of his right of self defence as he
was being attacked by the animal. Allowing the appeal the Court held that ferocity of
the animal is always a relevant factor to decide when killing of wild animal in self
defence is pleaded by the accused.
Permitting Hunting for Special Purposes
[Section 12]
• The Chief Wildlife Warden may permit hunting of any wild animal by an order in writing stating reasons, for the purpose of:—

(a) education;

(b) scientific research;

(c) scientific management which includes:—

(i)translocation of a wild animal to an alternative suitable habitat, or

(ii)population management of wildlife, without killing or poisoning or destroying any wild animal.

(iii)collection of specimens for recognized zoos or for museums and similar institution; and

(iv)derivation, collection or preparation of snake-venom for the manufacture of life saving drugs.

• The permission for hunting for any of the aforesaid purposes shall be required from the Central Government where hunting involves the
animals specified in Schedule I, and of the State Government for the animals specified in Schedule II to IV of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972.
Cases

• In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India [(2012) 3 SCC 277], the

petitioners drew attention of the Supreme Court towards the need of a Rescue
Plan to save the Asiatic Buffalo, endangered specie from extinction and to
make necessary funds and resources available for the purpose.

• The Court directed the Chhattisgarh State Government to take necessary steps
to preserve and conserve the wild buffalo. The Court considered the centrally
sponsored Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitat Scheme, 2009.
 Protection of Specified Plants
[Sections 17-A to 17-H]
• A separate Chapter III-A was inserted for protection of specified plants of sanctuaries, national parks, protected areas and prohibiting picking,
uprooting, damaging, destroying of the specified species. (Sec 17 A) 

• All such plants have been declared to be the property of the State and if they are a part of a sanctuary or a national park, they shall be the property
of the Central Government. (Sec 17 H) 

• Therefore, a person who desires to carry on business as a dealer of these specified plants, he must obtain a license from the Chief Wildlife Warden
or an officer authorized in this behalf.

• The cultivation, dealing in or possession of specified plants without a valid license has been declared as an offence punishable under the Wildlife
(Protection) Act. No person shall purchase, receive or acquire any specified plant, or part thereof or derivative, otherwise than a licensed dealer.

• Section 17-E of the Act requires that every person cultivating or dealing in a specified plant or part or derivative thereof, is required to declare to
the Chief Wildlife Warden or any other authorized by the State Government in this behalf, the stock of such plants and part or derivative thereof,
as the case may be, within 30 days from the date of commencement of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 1991 which came into force with
effect from October 2, 1991.
Case
• The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India [(2012) 4 SCC
362] was called upon to decide whether sandalwood and red sandalwood which are stated to be
threatened species should be declared as “specified plants” within the meaning of Section 2(27)
of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and included in Schedule VI to the Act. The Court held
that “Sandalwood is a part of Indian culture and heritage and its fragrance has spread not only in
India but also abroad and its rich oil contents led to its large scale exploitation”.

• Therefore, the Government should include sandalwood and red sandal as specified plants and
formulate policy in this regard.
Thank You