NAVIGATING THE WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2021 A Comprehensive Analysis of the Need for Scientific Methods in Wildlife Protection

-Sarthak Wadhwa *

I.   Introduction

A.     Prologue: The Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021

Last month, the Lok Sabha passed the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (“the Bill”)[1]– after two rounds of consultation with the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, Forests and Climate Change (“the Standing Committee”).[2] Introduced before the Lower House on 17^th December 2021, the Bill was immediately referred to the Standing Committee for consideration and review,[3] resulting in the generation of a two-part report critiquing the provisions of the Bill.[4] These reports contained an overview of the amendment in the context of the background objectives of the original Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (“the Act”),[5] recommendations on the contents of the Bill,[6] and supplementary recommendations on the inclusion of other major issues that the Bill did not contain at the time,[7] followed by a compendium of about 60 memoranda received by the Standing Committee from individuals, experts, non-governmental organizations, and interest groups in response to its public consultation efforts earlier this year.[8]

While public comments made apparent several procedural and substantive lacunae in the Bill,[9] it is hard to say that the consultation process has resulted in any substantial change in the schema of the Bill,[10] beyond semantic allusions to a more sustainable wildlife protection and preservation practice.[11] This paper seeks to examine the episode of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 to make a larger argument about the significance of public consultation in regulating natural resources,[12] and material compliance with international conventions. To this effect, it – firstly, revisits the issues raised through the consultation process, predominantly with reference to the aforementioned memoranda; secondly, contextualizes some high-incidence issues as procedural, substantive, and systemic shortcomings in the Bill as it currently exists; and, thirdly, refers to the relevant international environmental law conventions to better assess the impact of the lacunae flagged above.

B.    Contextualizing the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Journey So Far

i.    Pre-Legislative Background

Before embarking on the stated analytical endeavour, it is important to consider the original intent and objectives behind the enactment of the parent Act of 1972 – completing 50 years in force this year. At a time when the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 was becoming increasingly outmoded in the face of severe decimation and extinction of endangered wildlife in India,[13] and where forests were left under the varied and inconsistent governance of States,[14] a resolution was passed by the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal –in  pursuance of Article 252 of the Constitution– evincing the need for Union Government to protect wildlife.[15] Motivated by the economic disincentive model of the newly contemplated Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”)[16] –to which India was an early signatory[17]– the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 brought about a novel framework of protected areas,[18] specific regulations,[19] and commensurate penalties[20] for offences to better safeguard the wildlife resources of the country.

ii.  Underlying Ethos & Amendments

Overtime, the Act has evolved to become more nuanced through purposive amendments to inter alia enable the scientific translocation and management of wild animals,[21] outlawing trade in animal trophies,[22] empowering individuals to bring action against illegal poaching,[23] harmonizing forest dwellers’ interests in wildlife conservation efforts,[24] and prescribing zoo-management regulations.[25] In addition thereto, the Wildlife (Protection) Licensing Rules, 1983 have been drafted to ensure that permits and licenses under the Act are granted upon a strict construction of the preservationist objective of the Act, while taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the grant of such licenses and permits.[26]

The guiding ethos of the Act can be gathered from the fact that the long title thereto refers to it as “An Act to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country.” Notably, the Act is solely for the ‘protection’ of wildlife – which can either be regarded as a utilitarian objective to balance the ‘sustainable’ use of wildlife resources for public benefit (as considered in Colonial times),[27] or as an inherently valuable objective irrespective of its anthropocentric utility.[28] Whereas the earlier Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 was essentially to preserve wildlife resources against communal use, to the benefit of the colonial government; the trajectory of the 1972 Act had veered towards the latter, reformative approach that seeks to protect these resources for their own value.[29] It is perhaps through this dichotomous perspective that the inclusion of “conservation, protection and management of wild life” in the preamble of the Bill can be assessed,[30] to thematically connect the larger anxieties about the same. Having taken into account the preparatory material and the preservationist ethos embodied by the Act, the multifarious issues with the Amending Bill as flagged through public consultation can be better appreciated.

II. The Discontents of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021

As previously mentioned, the Standing Committee received an overwhelming 60 memoranda from interested stakeholders on the Bill – which it compiled into a supplementary volume of the report submitted by it to the Parliament.[31] These comments have been briefly summarized in the first sub-section to better present the scope of improvement expected of the Bill. Further, specific issues have been contextualized to achieve the twin purposes of assessing them holistically, and for further analysis within the comparative framework in the forthcoming section.

A.     Systemic Anxieties: The Multifarious Concerns about an Unscientific Amendment

i.    Scheduling Errors: Circumventing CITES

One of the foremost issues that most civil societies and interested stakeholders has is the incoherent re-arrangement of the schedules of the Bill, which neither relies on accepted taxonomical practice,[32] nor does it follow the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Lists[33] to extend special protections for (critically) endangered species.[34] While some CITES-related lacunae have been filled –by reducing the number of Schedules from 6 to 4[35]– no underlying criteria have been shared to disclose how species are dealt with via one regulatory model or another by virtue of the schedule they are in.[36] Further, all memoranda note that several critical animal species are missing from these schedules.[37] This logistical gap was flagged by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in its memorandum detailing how the lack of a database declaring the status report of wildlife across states, and the specific status of particular species – along with the expiration period for such notifications – results in lasting ambiguity in dealing with scheduled animals.[38] The lack of specificity and scientific accuracy pervades deeper than a scheduling issue, though.

ii.  Lax Notifications: ‘Invasive Species’ & ‘Vermin’

Critical amendments to the substantive contents of the Act, in terms of ‘invasive alien species’ and ‘vermin’ have neither been properly defined in substance, nor mandated to be determined by scientific methods in notification procedure. First, ‘invasive alien species’ has been defined as “species of animal or plant which is not native to India and whose introduction or spread may threaten or adversely impact wild life or its habitat”[39] However, such a definition neither follows the one used by the IUCN –which is based on ecology rather than nationality[40]– nor the comprehensive one contained in the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 –which is based on ecological, environmental or economic harm or disruption.[41] In both these alternative stipulations, the mere fact than an invasive species is native to India would not excuse it from the detrimental impact on the ecosystem it is alien to.[42] To this effect, a scientific cataloguing of inter-species ecological relationships needs to be undertaken for the effective proposition, evaluation, and de/listing of invasive species.[43]

Second, in going so far as to declare wild animals listed in Schedule II as potential vermin irrespective of their mention in Schedule V,[44] the Bill dilutes the protections available to them – without specific criteria to inform such declaration, or any surveying models to audit their continued need.[45] Essentially, the Government reserves the authority to declare that certain otherwise wild and protected species of animals (mentioned in Schedule II of the Act/Bill) may be culled/ hunted (with reference to Schedule V),[46] potentially decimating these populations without any foresight about the far-reaching consequences the same may have on the local ecology.[47]

iii. Compiling Core Conceptual Concerns

The failure of identification, notification, and monitoring systems at this stage snowballs into a larger blind spot in the monitoring and detection of illegal hunting, translocation and trade.[48] This also limits the potential for conservation effort connectivity since the scientific leverage of ecological corridors and networks cannot be adopted.[49] In a data-agnostic set-up such as this, comments seeking the inclusion of a research-oriented protection model augur larger crises that the Act is likely to engender on account of imprecise preservation efforts.[50] A data-driven, research-oriented procedure for the identification and protection of wildlife has been directed even by the Supreme Court in Centre for Environment Law & WWF-I v Union of India v Ors (“Lion Transaction Judgment”)[51]– whereby the Court ordered a survey of the habitats, security needs, IUCN-level, and de/listing requirements to be periodically conducted by the Executive.

This scientific process should inform the present and future conservation and protection efforts of the Act/Bill – across the substantive treatment of scheduled animals, ‘invasive species,’ and vermin, among other issues. It is therefore highly desirable that research activities permitted by the Act/Bill are streamlined to better approach wildlife conservation in the country: to this effect, it has been recommended that research should not be thought of as an exception to hunting[52] and that entry permits for the same are expeditiously provided or rejected with adequate reasoning.[53] Further, it may be relevant to incorporate the National Wildlife Policy and the Guidelines for Scientific Research in the Wildlife Protected Areas formulated thereunder, into the Act/Bill.[54]

B.    Elephant in the Room: The Trouble with Elephant Trade

On the front of major changes to the status quo, the Bill makes an unexpected exemption for elephant trade in the scheme of Section 43 of the Act. Originally, Section 43 prohibited all manners of commercial sale of captive animals, animal articles, trophies or uncured trophies irrespective of the seller possessing an ownership certificate for the same;[55] merely inter-zoo translocation and the sale of peacock feathers were permitted by the Act as exemptions to such prohibition.[56] With the aforesaid amendment, subject to the State Government’s permission, and in satisfaction of the Central Government’s conditions in this regard, captive elephants may be transferred or transported with a valid certificate of ownership.[57] This has been regarded as problematic by wildlife organizations on account of the potential for its abuse, in terms of the threat of capture posed to wild elephants.[58] In fact, the Elephant Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest has previously reported how the phasing out of elephant trade and private ownership is wholly imperative to secure the future of elephants in India.[59]

While privately owned elephants could be inherited by an individual’s descendants, strict requirements of certification, registration and declaration were prescribed by the Chief Wildlife Warden to ensure that wild elephants were not brazenly captured for this purpose.[60] With trade and transfer of elephants being made legal, elephants would be captured from the wild[61] – and potentially exploited in commercial forest ventures and the entertainment industry, and may even end up on the ivory black market in time.[62] Such uptick in the misuse of the law towards the perpetuation of illegal trade has been previously observed when –vide the Wildlife Stock Rules 2003– a general amnesty was given to traders to regularize the possession of all elephants in their captivity.[63]

Elephants are wild animals otherwise protected under Schedule I of the Act; apart from the Schedule I categorization thereof, an elephant is also wild in nature.[64] That the elephant has not been domesticated, even when owned in captivity, has been the subject of judicial commentary in the past as well.[65] Attempts at domesticating the elephant, for economic or religious reasons, has been documented to inflict an excruciating degree of physical and psychological damage and pain on the elephant[66] – with the extremely violent and abusive conditions of such domestication amounting to torture and cruelty under the law.[67] In fact, in several instances in the past, courts have recognized that the best interests of the animal lay in being set free from the captivity and custody of temple trusts and mahouts.[68] The memoranda submitted to the Standing Committee uniformly demand the deletion of the amendment allowing for the trade of elephants, going even further as to further delete existing exemptions under Section 40 allowing for the private ownership of elephants to begin with.[69]

III.   A Systemic Approach to Revising the Amendment Bill

A.     Streamlining State Machinery

There are two ways in which the existing bureaucratic machinery hampers the force of the Act: first, it provides for a highly centralized system reducing decision making power on the ground; and, second, there are cross-cutting overlaps between these authorities complicating the escalation matrix for these decisions. For instance, the Act already provides for advisory boards at the Centre and State level; both the National Board for Wildlife (“NBWL”) and the State Boards for Wild Life (“SBWLs”) have been given statutory recognition under the Act,[70] to better shape policy around the regulation and management of protected areas, and conservation of wildlife.[71]

In the past, conflicts have arisen regarding the force of these authorities’ (occasionally conflicting) recommendations. Since the Wildlife (Protection) Act is a Central Act, States rarely have the power or competence to make policy changes to hunting, trade or wildlife transactions in their territorial limits.[72] While a State may declare new protected areas (whether or not recommended by the relevant SBWL), it cannot alter or delist any existing protected area without the concurrence of the NBWL.[73] Any advice rendered by the NBWL trumps that given by SBWLs to their respective state governments, especially in matters related to development in eco-sensitive zones and the management of national parks and sanctuaries.[74] Evidently, the functionaries deployed under the Act render the Act impotent in urgent situations where timely action is required to address emerging issues locally. It has been suggested that the Act be streamlined to better administer the conservation intent embodied thereby.

B.    Emulating International Best Practices

Beyond administrative shortcomings, the larger concerns about the Government’s potential to arbitrarily declare species to be invasive or vermin, and other exemptions on anthropocentric (economic, religious or developmental) grounds continue to remain.[75] The substance of these concerns can be reframed to show that the larger interest these stakeholder groups have is about a consultative scientific process being followed before incursions into protected wildlife are permitted;[76] in essence, arbitrary administrative action unmediated by careful data analysis and specific checks would compromise the larger preservation efforts of the Act.[77]

In light of this, it is relevant to seek reference and support in the guiding principles of international conventions and the methods developed thereunder to better balance anthropocentric ends with the integrity of wildlife. For instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by India,[78] requires preservation and protection efforts to be synergistic, such that even the sustainable use of one component of an ecosystem (here, endangered fauna) remains mostly compatible with larger bio-diversity conservation efforts.[79] In essence, discussions on wildlife preservation (say, in the case of invasive species and vermin) cannot be looked at in isolation in the multi-variant ecological assessment warranted by bio-diversity protection:[80] specific sampling mechanisms and impact assessment frameworks are prescribed to make ensure the sustainable and scientific treatment of biospheres.[81]

Further, more specific episodes of international environmental law may provide for more targeted means of wildlife protection: for instance, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, to which India is also a party,[82] provides tools that may be suitably emulated for the preservation of the Sunderbans biosphere reserve.[83] At the same time, valuable ideas and models may also be derived from conventions that India is not a signatory to – such as the European Council Directive which provides for situational parameters such that specific interventions are modelled around the larger ecological sanctity of a region.[84]

C.     Implementing CITES

In any case, such suggestions are forward-looking inasmuch as they require careful consideration before adopting the same in the Indian environment. However, better implementation of the CITES cannot be regarded in a similar fashion; owing to less than forceful measured being adopted by the CITES Secretariat,[85] compliance with CITES leaves much to be desired.[86] Notwithstanding, the Standing Committee recommends that the Bill could benefit from focused effort on this front[87] – considering that the CITES Secretariat has previously recommended the suspension of CITES-listed species arising out of India,[88] and has currently placed the nation on a priority watch-list.[89] An extremely commercial preservation-agnostic Bill could inadvertently hurt commerce if the CITES chooses to limit/suspend trade altogether.[90]

A systemic paradigm shift is warranted in the wildlife preservation and protection effort to urgently incorporate scientific action in the schema of the Bill for the objectives of the parent Act to be genuinely fulfilled.[91] One way to implement the CITES effectively would be to establish the reporting and monitoring mechanisms prescribed thereby, to garner data on the population estimates and classifications, which will ultimately inform unidirectional trade quotas by illuminating how “sustainable” trade can be.[92] Incidentally, such substantive measures also take care of issues with scheduling the fauna on the basis of desired protection levels, by arriving at a CITES-oriented classification system.[93] This goes beyond incorporating the appendices to the CITES by bare reference, and allows for more specific and holistic, regional conservation effort.

IV.   Conclusion: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

While this paper sheds light on a number of issues raised about the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 – there are several cross-disciplinary issues and concerns that may still be relevant to be discussed. The Bill has implications for forest dwellers, people dependent on forest produce, human-wildlife conflicts (viz., prevention and compensation), criminal procedure in wildlife offences (viz. confiscation, prosecution, and conviction), and federal forest management. Read with forthcoming amendment to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002,[94] rules for the diversion and commercial use of forests under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980[95] –in derogation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006[96] – and proposed public consultation for the amendment of the Indian Forest Act 1927,[97] the amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act bellies a larger commercial inclination in India’s environmental laws.

However, the suggestions on the Amendment Bill do not seek to impede the socio-economic utilization and development of India’s forest resources; nor do they seek to suggest that animal rights should be treated as paramount and superseding human interest. A sincere reading of these comments reveals that citizens are themselves stakeholders in the conservation of forests for their legal and sustainable use. It is only the laxity in the law towards the objective of sustainability and transparency that has been taken to task in the reports prepared by the Standing Committee; such gaps create a potential for profiteering for tradesmen who exploit forest resources and wildlife. Such changes are extremely critical and need to be made at the earliest.

* Sarthak Wadhwa, Student, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.

[1] HT News Desk, “Lok Sabha passes Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021. What it means.” (Hindustan Times, 2 August 2022) <www.hindustantimes.com/environment/lok-sabha-passes-wild-life-protection-amendment-bill-2021-what-it-means.html>

[2] ANI, “Parliamentary Panel to Adopt Draft Report on Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021” (ThePrint, 18 April 2022) <theprint.in/india/parliamentary-panel-to-adopt-draft-report-on-wild-life-protection-amendment-bill>

[3] Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, Forests and Climate Change (Report No. 365), The Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 Volume-I: Recommendations of the Committee (April, 2022), [1.1] (hereinafter, “Standing Committee, Recommendations”)

[4] Pre-Legislative Research, “The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2021” (PRS, 17 December 2021) <prsindia.org/billtrack/the-wild-life-protection-amendment-bill-2021>

[5] Standing Committee, Recommendations, [2.1]; See: Web Desk, “Wildlife Protection Act 1972 was Passed on this Day: About the Act and How it Changed” (India Today, 21 August 2018) <www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/wildlife-protection-act-1972-enacted-on-this-day-know-about-the-act-and-its-changes-1319842-2018-08-21>

[6] Standing Committee, Recommendations, pp 4-7, 14-74

[7] Standing Committee, Recommendations, pp 8-13

[8] Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, Forests and Climate Change (Report No. 365), The Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 Volume-II: Memoranda Submitted by Individuals/Experts/Institutions (April, 2022) (hereinafter, “Standing Committee, Memoranda”)

[9] See, inter alia: Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, Comments on Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (2021) <thelifeindia.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Comments-on-wildlife-protection-act-2021.pdf> –as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 33; Nature Conservation Foundation, Comments on Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill, 2021, (NCF, 17 January 2022) <www.ncf-india.org/blog/comments-on-the-wild-life-protection-amendment-bill-2021> –as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 37-65

[10] Jacob P Koshy, “Jairam Ramesh Opposes Provisions of Wildlife Bill Passed in Lok Sabha” (The Hindu, 11 August 2022) <www.thehindu.com/news/national/jairam-ramesh-opposes-provisions-of-wildlife-bill-passed-in-loksabha/article65757408.ece>

[11] See: News Services Division, “Lok Sabha passes Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021” (All India Radio, 2 August 2022) <newsonair.gov.in/Lok-Sabha-passes-Wild-Life-(Protection)-Amendment-Bill%>

[12] See: MENA-OECD Governance Program, Regulatory Consultation: A MENA-OECD Practitioners’ Guide For Engaging Stakeholders in the Rule-Making Process (OECD, 2011); World Bank (Social Development Notes, No. 30) Public Consultation in Environmental Assessment: Lessons from East and South Asia (1997) <openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11592>

[13] Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Statement of Objects and Reasons [1]

[14] Constitution of India, 1949, sch VII, List II, Entry 20

[15] Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Statement of Objects and Reasons [3]

[16] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Art. VIII “Measures to be taken by Parties;” See also: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Conference of Parties 8.4 (revised CoP 15), Resolution on National laws for implementation of the Convention (March, 1992)

[17] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Conference of Parties 2.1, List of Participants: Parties (March, 1979)

[18] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, ch IV “Protected Areas”

[19] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, ch V “Trade or Commerce in Wild Animals, Animal Articles and Trophies”

[20] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, ch VI “Prevention and Detection of Offences”

[21] Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 1982, Statement of Objects and Reasons [2]; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 12 – “12. Grant of permit for special purposes.—Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, it shall be lawful for the Chief Wild Life Warden, to grant [*  *  *] a permit, […]  which shall entitle the holder of such permit to hunt, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, any wild animal specified in such permit, for the purpose of, […] (bb) scientific management. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (bb), the expression “scientific management” means— (i) translocation of any wild animals to an alternative suitable habitat; or (ii) population management of wild life, without killing or poisoning or destroying any wild animals”

[22] Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 1982, Statement of Objects and Reasons [3]; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 43 – “43. Regulation of transfer of animal, etc.—(1) No person having in his possession captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy in respect of which he has a certificate of ownership shall transfer by way of sale or offer for sale of by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature, such animal or article or trophy or uncured trophy.”

[23] Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 1991, Statement of Objects and Reasons [3]; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 55(c) – “55. Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act on the complaint of any person other than […] (c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid”

[24] Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 1991, Statement of Objects and Reasons [6]

[25] Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 1991, Statement of Objects and Reasons [7]; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, ch IV-A “Central Zoo Authority and Recognition of Zoos”

[26] Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) v Nisar Khan, (2003) 4 SCC 595; See: Wildlife (Protection) Licensing (Additional Matters for Consideration) Rules, 1983, rule 3

[27] Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, “The Raj and the Paradoxes of Wildlife Conservation: British Attitudes and

Expediences,” (2015) 58(1) The Historical Journal 75, 92-94

[28] Annecoos Wiersema, “Wildlife,” in Lavanya Rajamani, Jacqueline Peel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of

International Environmental Law (OUP, 2021)

[29] M. K. Ramesh, “The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 of India: An Agenda for Reform” (1999) 4 Asia Pacific Journal for Environmental Law 271

[30] Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021, s 2 – “In the preamble of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), for the words “protection of wild animals, birds and plants”, the words “conservation, protection and management of wild life” shall be substituted.”

[31] Standing Committee, Memoranda (n 8)

[32] Nature Conservation Foundation, Comments on Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill, 2021, (NCF, 17 January 2022), pp 3 –as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 39

[33] See: International Union for Conservation of Nature, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (v3), (2021)

[34] Conservation Initiatives, Inputs to the Parliamentary Committee on Environment and Forests on the proposed Amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (January, 2022) [2] – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 97

[35] Zoo Outreach Organization, Comments on the Wildlife (Protection) Act Amendment Bill 2021 (ZOO, 2022) pp 4 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 69

[36] Wildlife Trust of India, Recommendations to Strengthen the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (2022) pp 15 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 205

[37] See: Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology, Biodiversity Collaborative, Submission of comments on Bill. no. 159 of 2021 i.e. the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (2022), pp 7 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 160

[38] Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Committee on Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill 2021: Submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Parliament of India (January, 2022) – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 180-81

[39] Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021, s 3(c) – inserting s 2(16A) to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

[40] International Union for Conservation of Nature, Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasion Species (2000) pp 5 – ““Alien invasive species” means an alien species which becomes established in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitat, is an agent of change, and threatens native biological diversity”

[41] Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, Art 8(h); r/w United Nations Environmental Program, Convention on Biological Diversity, Invasive Alien Species: Proposals on Ways and Means to Address Gaps in International Standards Regarding Invasive Alien Species Introduced As Pets, Aquarium and Terrarium Species, As Live Bait and Live Food (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA15/6) (2011)

[42] Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment, Comments on Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (2021) pp 2 –as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 34

[43] Nature Conservation Foundation, Comments on Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill, 2021, (NCF, 17 January 2022) pp 2 –as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 38

[44] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 62 – “Declaration of certain wild animals to be vermin.— [The Central Government] may, by notification, declare any wild animal other than those specified in Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II to be vermin for any area and for such period as may be specified therein and so long as such notification is in force, such wild animal shall be deemed to have been included in Schedule V”; r/w Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021, s 38 – “In section 62 of the principal Act,— (a) the words and figures “and Part II of Schedule II” shall be omitted; (b) the words and figure “and so long as such notification is in force, such wild animals shall be deemed to have been included in Schedule V” shall be omitted”

[45] World Wildlife Fund, WWF India Suggestions on the Wildlife (Protection) Act Amendment Bill 2021 (2022) pp 2 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 146

[46] Bombay Natural History Society, BNHS Comments on the Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill 2021 (2022) – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 142-43

[47] Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology, Biodiversity Collaborative, Submission of comments on Bill. no. 159 of 2021 i.e. the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (2022), pp 5 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 165

[48] Society for Non-Human Persons, Memorandum on Wildlife (Protection) Amednment Bill, 2021 (2022), pp 12

[49] Technical Policy Report of the IUCN Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group, Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors (IUCN: Switzerland, 2020) <portals.iucn.org/library/node/49061>; See: Wildlife Conservation Society, Preliminary Comments on the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (Bill No. 159 of 2021 as introduced in the Rajya Sabha) to amend the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 (January 2022), pp 2 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 123

[50] Wildlife Conservation Society, Preliminary Comments on the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (Bill No. 159 of 2021 as introduced in the Rajya Sabha) to amend the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 (January 2022), pp 3 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 124

[51] (2013) 8 SCC 234

[52] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 9 r/w s 12

[53] Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology, Biodiversity Collaborative, Submission of comments on Bill. no. 159 of 2021 i.e. the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (2022), pp 9 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 169

[54] Ministry of Environment & Forests, Guidelines for Scientific Research in the Wildlife Protected Areas, No. 6-3/2003-WL-I (2005) <moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/guidelines_scientific.pdf>

[55] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 43(1)

[56] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 43(3)

[57] Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021,s 27 – “(4) This section shall not apply to the transfer or transport of any live elephant by a person having a certificate of ownership, where such person has obtained prior permission from the State Government on fulfilment of such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

[58] Conservation Initiatives, Inputs to the Parliamentary Committee on Environment and Forests on the proposed Amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (January, 2022) pp 2 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 97

[59] M. Rangarajan, et al, Gajah: Securing the future for elephants in India. The Report of the Elephant Task Force, (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2010)

[60] Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation Centre v. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 716

[61] World Wildlife Fund, WWF India Suggestions on the Wildlife (Protection) Act Amendment Bill 2021 (2022) pp 2 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 146

[62] Wildlife Trust of India, Recommendations to Strengthen the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (2022) pp 11 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 201

[63] Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, WRRC Submissions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Forests, Wildlife and Climate Change (2022) pp 2 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 149

[64] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 2(36) – ““wild animal” means any animal specified in Schedules I to IV and found wild in nature”

[65] Zulfikar Ali v State, C. R. No. 02/2014 (Delhi District Court)

[66] Soutik Biswas, “The tragic lives of India’s mistreated captive elephants” (BBC News, 24 April 2018) <www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43862182>

[67] Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, s 11 – “[…] (e) keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or (f) keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or […]”

[68] See: CUPA vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., W.P. No. 7276/2005 [15]; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v State of Maharashtra, W. P. No. 2662/2013 (Bombay High Court)

[69] See: Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, WRRC Submissions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Forests, Wildlife and Climate Change (2022) pp 7 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 154

[70] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 5A, 6

[71] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 5C, 8

[72] Harbhajan Singh Pabla, “Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Faulty Wiring” in Besides Loving the Beasts (Wildlife Conservation in India-4) (2021)

[73] Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, s 26A(3), 35(5); See: Centre for Environment Law & WWF-I v Union of India v Ors, (2013) 8 SCC 234

[74] Goa Foundation v Union of India, W. P. No. 460/2004

[75] Shuchita Jha, “Wildlife Protection Amendment Bill: Why ‘religious or any other purpose’ clause has enraged animal activists” (Down to Earth) <www.downtoearth.org.in/news/wildlife-biodiversity/wildlife-protection-amendment-bill-why-religious-or-any-other-purpose-clause-has-enraged-animal-activists-84191>

[76] Ishita Garg, “Environment Impact Assessment: India needs to revamp its public consultation framework” (Down to Earth, 23 February 2021) <www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/governance/environment-impact-assessment-india-needs-to-revamp-its-public-consultation-framework-75630>

[77] Suchitra Karthikeyan, “Explained | What India’s Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill seeks to change” (The Hindu, 9 July 2022) <www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/explained-indias-wild-life-protection-act-features-shortcomings-recommended-changes/article65579474.ece>

[78] Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; Convention on Biological Diversity, “Country Profiles: India” (CBD) <www.cbd.int/countries/?country=in>

[79] Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, Art. 8(i)

[80] Daniel Challender, Stuart Arrop, Douglas MacMillan, “Towards Informed and Multi-Faceted Wildlife Trade Interventions,” (2015) 3 Global Ecology and Conservation, 129-148

[81] Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, Art. 7, 14

[82] Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 1971; “Country Profile: India” (Ramsar) <www.ramsar.org/wetland/india>

[83] “National Report on the Implementation of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands” (India) National Report to Ramsar COP13 (2018) <ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/importftp/COP13NR_India_e.pdf>

[84] European Council, Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [92 /43 /EEC] (21 May 1992), [6]

[85] Rachel Nuwer, “How Well Does CITES Really Prevent Wildlife Trafficking and Illegal Trade?” (Ensia, 4 October 2018) <ensia.com/features/cites/>

[86] Vivek Mukherjee, “Why the Exotic Wildlife Trade is Rising Steeply in India” (The Citizen, 19 June 2021) <thecitizen.in/index.php/en/newsdetail/index/13/20511/why-the-exotic-wildlife-trade-is-rising-steeply-in-india>; “How Effective in CITES?” (India Environment Portal, 14 July 1997) <www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/18743/how-effective-is-cites/>

[87] Standing Committee, Recommendations, ch 4

[88] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Recommendations From CITES Secretariat on Prohibitions of Trade in Certain Animal Species From Twelve, Vol. 59 No. 234 (7 December 1994) <www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1994-12-07/html/94-30053.htm> – “Based on information received, India has not satisfactorily implemented the recommendations of the CITES Standing Committee. Specifically, the Management Authority of India should advise the CITES Secretariat of the following: Details of national legislation and management programs for […], and any progress in the initiation of studies to determine safe harvest levels and the ecological impact of harvesting […]. Therefore, in accordance with the responsibility of the United States under CITES, and effective immediately and until further notice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no shipments of specimens of […] may be imported into the United States, directly or indirectly, from India, unless an exemption in CITES Article VII applies […]”

[89] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, “India: Overview” (CITES) <cites.org/eng/parties/country-profiles/in>

[90] Standing Committee, Recommendations, ch 2, [2.2] “[…] Non-compliance by a country to adopt appropriate legislation to implement CITES may result in a recommendation to suspend trade in CITES listed species with such country. Such a recommendation was made in respect of India in December 2004 but was withdrawn in March 2005 following assurances by India”; Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species, Management of Nationally Established Export Quotas (Conf. 14.7 –revised in CoP15) (23 June 2010) <cites.org/eng/res/14/14-07R15.php>

[91] Wildlife Conservation Society, Preliminary Comments on the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021 (Bill No. 159 of 2021 as introduced in the Rajya Sabha) to amend the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 (January 2022), pp 3 – as referred in Standing Committee, Memoranda, pp 124

[92] Society for Non-Human Persons, Memorandum on Wildlife (Protection) Amednment Bill, 2021 (2022), pp 12

[93] See: Sarah Heinrich, Lalita Gomez, “India’s Use of CITES Appendix II,” (2021) 44 Nature Conservation 163-176

[94] Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021; See: PRS Legislative Research, “The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill, 2021” (PRS) <prsindia.org/billtrack/the-biological-diversity-amendment-bill-2021>

[95] Forest Conservation Rules, 2022

[96] Press Information Bureau, “New Forest Conservation Rules, 2022” (PIB, 28 July 2022) <pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1845824>

[97] Ministry of environment, Forest and Climate Change, Forest Policy Division, “Notice for Public Consultation” (F. No. 2-1/2020-FP) (9 July 2022) <prsindia.org/files/parliamentry-announcement/2022-07-31/Draft%20Indian%20Forest%20Act%201927%20.pdf>

**Featured Image sourced from: https://www.ranthamborenationalpark.com/blog/wildlife-conservation-initiatives-indian-government/