Poaching Under Wildlife Protection Act
✅ 1. What is Poaching?
Poaching refers to the illegal hunting, capturing, or killing of wild animals protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (WPA). It is one of the most serious wildlife crimes, often linked with organized trafficking in animal parts like ivory, tiger skins, and rhino horns.
✅ 2. Definition under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
While the Act does not explicitly define "poaching", it prohibits activities that constitute poaching under various sections:
Section 2(16): "Hunting" includes capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring, and trapping.
Section 9: Hunting of wild animals listed in Schedules I to IV is prohibited unless permitted under specific conditions.
Section 11 & 12: Exceptions exist for self-defence, disease control, and scientific research—but with official permission only.
Section 49B: Bans trade in animal articles derived from Schedule I and II animals.
✅ 3. Legal Provisions Against Poaching
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| Section 9 | Prohibits hunting of any wild animal specified in Schedules I–IV. |
| Section 50 | Empowers officers to arrest, search, and seize in case of poaching. |
| Section 51 | Prescribes penalties: imprisonment up to 3 to 7 years and fine up to ₹25,000 (or more if amended). |
| Section 39 | Any wild animal hunted or animal article is government property. |
Poaching of animals listed in Schedule I (like tigers, elephants, rhinos) attracts the harshest penalties.
✅ 4. Categories of Protected Species
Schedule I & II – Highly endangered; maximum protection.
Schedule III & IV – Protected, but lesser penalties.
Schedule V – Animals that can be hunted (e.g., rats, crows).
Schedule VI – Protects endangered plant species.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Poaching under WPA
⚖️ 1. Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604
Facts: Sansar Chand was a notorious poacher involved in killing protected species like tigers and leopards for their skins and bones.
Held: The Supreme Court rejected leniency and upheld conviction under WPA. The Court emphasized ecological importance of wildlife and the role of law in protection.
Impact: A landmark judgment stressing that poaching is an ecological crime, not just a legal offence.
⚖️ *2. Centre for Environmental Law, WWF v. Union of India (2013)
Facts: This case arose from the crisis in tiger population due to poaching, especially in Sariska and Panna Tiger Reserves.
Held: The Supreme Court ordered setting up of the National Tiger Conservation Authority and stressed strict implementation of WPA.
Impact: Strengthened anti-poaching measures and promoted state accountability in protecting endangered species.
⚖️ *3. State v. Ram Ratan (Ranthambore Poaching Case, 1998)
Facts: A group of men, including Ram Ratan, were caught with tiger skins in the Ranthambore National Park.
Held: Conviction under Sections 9, 39, and 51 of the WPA. Court imposed maximum sentence, citing the seriousness of the offence.
Impact: Set a precedent for strict punishment in tiger poaching cases.
⚖️ 4. Wildlife Warden v. Komarrikkal Elias (2005) 10 SCC 139
Facts: The accused was found in possession of ivory. Claimed it was inherited.
Held: The Supreme Court held that under Section 49B, the burden of proof is on the possessor to prove lawful ownership.
Impact: Strengthened the no-tolerance approach to illegal possession of wildlife products.
⚖️ *5. Navin M. Raheja v. Union of India (2001)
Facts: Poaching of leopards was highlighted in this PIL filed by a wildlife activist.
Held: Delhi High Court directed increased surveillance and use of camera traps to prevent poaching.
Impact: Emphasized the role of technology and civil society in combating poaching.
⚖️ *6. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Ongoing Forest Cases)
Facts: Ongoing PIL addressing forest and wildlife conservation.
Held: The Supreme Court has passed numerous interim orders strengthening wildlife laws, restricting forest diversions, and curbing poaching.
Impact: Continues to be instrumental in shaping anti-poaching policies and strengthening implementation of WPA.
⚖️ *7. State v. Dara Singh (Elephant Poaching Case, Odisha)
Facts: Dara Singh was accused of killing elephants for tusks.
Held: Court imposed 7 years’ imprisonment and a heavy fine under WPA.
Impact: Recognized elephants as Schedule I animals, deserving highest protection.
📌 Challenges in Enforcement
| Challenge | Details |
|---|---|
| Weak Enforcement | Inadequate staff and training of forest officials |
| Corruption & Collusion | Sometimes officials themselves are complicit |
| Wildlife Trade Network | Organized transnational smuggling of wildlife parts |
| Lack of Awareness | Among locals and law enforcement |
| Delay in Prosecution | Wildlife cases take years to conclude |
📊 Punishment for Poaching under WPA
| Category of Animal | Imprisonment | Fine |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule I or II | 3 to 7 years | ₹25,000 or more |
| Repeat offence | Min. 7 years | ₹50,000 or more |
| Schedule III or IV | Up to 3 years | ₹25,000 |
| Non-compoundable offences | No compromise allowed | – |
✅ Conclusion
Poaching is a serious crime under the Wildlife Protection Act, and the Indian judiciary has consistently taken a strict stance.
Courts have upheld severe punishments for poachers, especially in cases involving Schedule I animals like tigers and elephants.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have enforced wildlife laws strictly, recognizing ecological balance and biodiversity as essential components of the right to life under Article 21.
There is an ongoing need for better enforcement, technological surveillance, and community participation to combat poaching effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments