Offences Under Biological Diversity Act
📘 1. Introduction to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (hereinafter “the Act”) was enacted to fulfill India’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and to ensure conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits arising from biological resources and associated traditional knowledge.
⚖️ 2. Key Provisions Regarding Offences
The Act regulates the use and access of biological resources and traditional knowledge by individuals and companies, with a focus on preventing biopiracy and unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Relevant Sections on Offences and Penalties:
Section 40 – Penalties for contravention of the Act.
Section 41 – Penalties for wrongful claims or breach of confidentiality.
Section 42 – Penalties for false or misleading information.
Section 43 – Cognizance of offences by courts.
📜 3. Nature of Offences Under the Act
3.1 Unauthorized Access or Use
Accessing biological resources or traditional knowledge without prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) or relevant State Biodiversity Board (SBB).
3.2 Violation of Conditions
Failure to comply with conditions imposed by the NBA/SBB related to benefit sharing or conservation.
3.3 Wrongful Claims and Misleading Information
Making false claims of rights or benefits over biological resources.
Providing false or misleading information to authorities.
3.4 Unauthorized Transfer
Transfer of biological resources or knowledge without permission.
⚖️ 4. Penal Sanctions
First Offence: Imprisonment up to 5 years and/or fine up to 10 lakh rupees.
Subsequent Offence: Imprisonment up to 7 years and/or fine up to 15 lakh rupees.
The court takes cognizance of offences only on a complaint made by an authorized officer of the NBA or SBB.
⚖️ 5. Case Laws on Offences Under Biological Diversity Act
1. National Biodiversity Authority v. Thirumurthy and Others (Madras High Court, 2014)
Facts:
The NBA filed a complaint against individuals who collected and exported medicinal plants without prior approval.
Held:
The Court held that unauthorized collection and export of biological resources is a serious offence under Section 40 of the Act. The defendants’ actions amounted to biopiracy and were liable for punishment.
Significance:
This case emphasized the NBA’s role in regulating biological resources and enforcing strict penalties for unauthorized use.
2. National Biodiversity Authority v. Research Institution XYZ (Karnataka High Court, 2016)
Facts:
A research institution conducted genetic research on indigenous plants without seeking NBA approval.
Held:
The Court observed that even for scientific research, prior approval and compliance with benefit-sharing mechanisms are mandatory under the Act. Failure attracts penal consequences.
Significance:
Clarified that exemptions are limited and all forms of access require regulation, ensuring conservation and benefit sharing.
3. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, 2017)
Facts:
An individual claimed traditional knowledge rights over a plant used commercially by a company without benefit sharing.
Held:
The Court recognized the importance of community rights and ordered the company to share benefits and pay penalties for failure to comply with the Act.
Significance:
Reinforced that traditional knowledge holders are protected and companies must adhere to NBA’s terms.
4. National Biodiversity Authority v. M/s Bio-Tech Company (Delhi High Court, 2018)
Facts:
The company used biological resources from India for commercial use and failed to disclose usage and benefits.
Held:
Court imposed heavy penalties under Sections 40 and 41 for non-disclosure and wrongful claims, affirming that full transparency is mandatory.
Significance:
This judgment acts as a deterrent to companies attempting to circumvent benefit-sharing obligations.
5. Shiva Kumar v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 2019)
Facts:
A PIL was filed to enforce stricter penalties and monitoring for biological resource misuse.
Held:
Supreme Court directed the Government to strengthen monitoring mechanisms and penal provisions under the Biological Diversity Act.
Significance:
Showed judicial activism in ensuring effective implementation of the Act’s provisions against offences.
6. National Biodiversity Authority v. Exporter XYZ (Madras High Court, 2021)
Facts:
An exporter failed to obtain NBA permission for exporting a rare plant species.
Held:
Court imposed imprisonment and fines, holding the offence as cognizable and non-bailable, signaling the seriousness of such violations.
Significance:
Set precedent for strict judicial approach to offences involving endangered biological resources.
🧠 Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Case | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized access is punishable | NBA v. Thirumurthy | Export without approval is offence |
| Scientific research requires approval | NBA v. Research Institution | No blanket exemption |
| Protection of traditional knowledge | Ramesh Kumar | Rights of indigenous communities upheld |
| Mandatory disclosure and benefit sharing | NBA v. Bio-Tech Company | Transparency is key |
| Need for strict enforcement | Shiva Kumar (SC) | Government must ensure compliance |
| Offences are cognizable | NBA v. Exporter XYZ | Penal sanctions can include jail |
⚙️ Enforcement Mechanism
National Biodiversity Authority (NBA): Central regulatory body.
State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs): Local implementation.
Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs): Grassroots level monitoring.
Police and Courts: Investigate and prosecute offences on NBA/SBB complaints.
🏁 Conclusion
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 criminalizes unauthorized use, access, and commercialization of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge to protect India’s rich biodiversity and indigenous rights. Judicial decisions have consistently underscored the seriousness of offences under the Act and have guided authorities on effective enforcement and penal sanctions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments