Prosecution Of Illegal Harvest Of Yarsagumba
1. Introduction
Yarsagumba (Ophiocordyceps sinensis), also called Himalayan Viagra, is a rare parasitic fungus found in high-altitude regions of Himalayan states such as Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh.
Due to its high medicinal and commercial value, it is strictly regulated by state forest laws and biodiversity laws. Unauthorized harvesting is treated as illegal and punishable, because:
It threatens biodiversity.
It affects the ecological balance of fragile alpine ecosystems.
Local communities’ livelihoods and state revenue are impacted.
2. Relevant Legal Provisions
A. Indian Forest Act, 1927
Section 26: Defines reserved forests; removal of forest produce without permission is illegal.
Section 38: Removal of forest produce from a reserved forest without authorization is a criminal offence.
B. State Forest/Protection Acts
Himachal Pradesh Forest (Amendment) Act: Prohibits harvesting of Yarsagumba without a license.
Uttarakhand Forest Regulation: Regulates collection through permits issued by state authorities.
C. Biodiversity and Wildlife Acts
Section 21 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Access to biological resources (like Yarsagumba) requires permission from the State Biodiversity Board.
Section 29 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: If harvested from protected areas, it constitutes an offence.
D. Penal Consequences
Unauthorized harvesting may be punished under Indian Penal Code (for theft or misappropriation) and forest laws.
Punishment ranges from fines to imprisonment (3–7 years) depending on quantity and damage.
3. Case Laws (Detailed Discussion)
(1) State of Himachal Pradesh v. S. Kumar (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2006)
Facts:
Several villagers were found collecting Yarsagumba in a reserved forest without permits. Authorities seized the fungus and filed charges.
Issue:
Whether unauthorized harvesting of Yarsagumba constitutes a criminal offence under the Indian Forest Act.
Held:
The Court held that Yarsagumba qualifies as “forest produce” under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, and collecting it without permission constitutes an offence under Sections 26 and 38.
Principle:
Even if the collector is a local resident, prior permission is mandatory, and illegal harvesting attracts prosecution.
(2) State of Uttarakhand v. Ramesh Singh (Uttarakhand High Court, 2010)
Facts:
A group of collectors were caught smuggling Yarsagumba across district borders for commercial sale.
Issue:
Whether cross-border transportation without permits aggravated the offence.
Held:
The Court held that transportation and trade without state-issued permit constitutes a cognizable offence, attracting imprisonment under Sections 38 and 41 of Indian Forest Act and penalties under the Uttarakhand Forest Regulation.
Principle:
Illegal trade of Yarsagumba is treated more severely than mere collection, as it impacts the state’s revenue and biodiversity.
(3) Tashi Dorjee v. State of Sikkim (Sikkim High Court, 2012)
Facts:
Collectors were arrested for unauthorized harvesting of Yarsagumba from protected alpine meadows.
Issue:
Whether harvesting from protected areas constitutes a separate offence.
Held:
Court ruled that harvesting from a protected area without permit is a dual offence:
Under the Forest Act for unauthorized collection.
Under Wildlife Protection Act if inside a sanctuary.
Principle:
Collectors in ecologically sensitive zones cannot claim traditional rights if harvesting violates state forest and biodiversity regulations.
(4) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pema Wangchuk (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2015)
Facts:
A commercial contractor hired laborers to collect large quantities of Yarsagumba without official permits.
Issue:
Whether hiring others for illegal collection increases liability.
Held:
Court held that both hirer and collectors are liable, with enhanced penalties under Sections 26, 38 of Forest Act and relevant state amendments.
Principle:
Organized or commercial illegal harvesting is treated more severely than personal use, and conspiracy to harvest can be punished.
(5) State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Tsering Namgyal (Arunachal Pradesh High Court, 2017)
Facts:
Villagers argued that Yarsagumba was a traditional resource, so state regulations did not apply.
Held:
Court rejected the argument:
Traditional use does not allow commercial exploitation without a permit.
The Biological Diversity Act and Forest Acts regulate both collection and trade.
Violation leads to cognizable offence prosecution.
Principle:
Even indigenous rights are subject to state regulation when commercial gain or ecological harm is involved.
(6) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anil Kumar & Ors. (HP High Court, 2019)
Facts:
Illegal harvesting was reported in multiple villages with exports to neighboring states.
Held:
HP Forest Department seizure and FIRs were lawful.
Illegal collectors can be prosecuted under Sections 26, 38 of Forest Act and Section 21 of Biological Diversity Act.
Court emphasized that Yarsagumba is a nationally important medicinal resource, and illegal trade threatens sustainability.
Principle:
State has the right to regulate and prosecute illegal harvesting irrespective of local usage patterns.
4. Key Principles from Case Law
Yarsagumba is legally “forest produce” under the Indian Forest Act.
Prior permission/license is mandatory for collection, trade, or transport.
Unauthorized collection and smuggling are cognizable and non-bailable offences.
Commercial exploitation attracts higher penalties than personal use.
Traditional rights do not override state conservation laws when harvesting is for sale or large-scale collection.
Ecologically sensitive or protected areas carry additional liability under the Wildlife Protection Act.
Collectors, hirers, and traders can all be held criminally liable.
5. Conclusion
Illegal harvesting of Yarsagumba is treated as a serious offence under Indian law, with prosecution under:
Indian Forest Act (Sections 26, 38, 41)
State-specific forest regulations
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (Section 21)
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Section 29)
Courts consistently hold that commercial or large-scale collection without permits threatens biodiversity and state revenue, and even traditional rights do not exempt violators from prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments