Uttaranchal High Court: The Court took suo motu cognizance of a matter wherein, the Chief Wildlife Warden (‘CWW’), the authority competent under Section 11(1)(a) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (‘the Act’) to direct to hunt an animal included in Schedule 1 of the Act, directed to kill an unidentified man-eater. The Division Bench of Sharad Kumar Sharma*, and Pankaj Purohit, JJ., directed that before issuance of any direction to hunt or kill any wild animal, man-eater herein, the provision provided under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act must be followed by the CWW.
In a village adjoining to Bhowali areas, due to unprecedented attacks made by a man-eater, three lives were lost in three separate attacks, which as per the forest department, was claimed to be an unidentified mammal, whether leopard or tiger.
The Court opined that the man-eater if identified had to be dealt with, strictly in accordance with the provision contained under Section 11 of the Act and there could not be any irrational decisions by the CWW to hunt a wildlife included in Schedule 1 of the Act, without the satisfaction being recorded by him.
The Court referred to Section 11(1)(a) of the Act and opined that the CWW had the responsibility that before issuance of any order or direction for any wild animal or man-eater to be killed or hunted he had to satisfy himself, based on the material placed before him that the wild animal, as specified Schedule 1 of the Act, which included leopard and tiger had become dangerous to human being or because of the disablement of the wild animal, he was required to be hunted which became inevitable. The Court further opined that the decision of the CWW must be on rational basis, based on credible material and not because of any pressure exhorted by local politicians or people. The Court further opined that self-determination of CWW was mandatorily required.
The Court opined that the prime concern as mandated by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment was ‘protection’ and that was why the Act was named as Wildlife ‘Protection’ Act, 1972. The Court opined that ‘protection’ was an aspect which became a predominant element in its consideration, before any decision was taken by the competent authority to decide or direct to kill a wild animal i.e., man-eater herein.
The Court noted the allegedly identified man-eater tiger had been tranquillised and translocated and another man-eater leopard had been trapped. However, the Court further opined that the Court had the responsibility to lay down basic guidelines which had been provided under the Act.
The Court thus directed that before issuance of any directions by the CWW to hunt a wild animal, he would have to satisfy himself based on the material placed before him in relation to animals included in Schedule I of the Act. The decision to hunt should be backed with logical reasons assigned to it in written form, only upon its identification and if declared as a threat to human life. The procedures prescribed under first proviso of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act should be followed, that the animal should be first attempted to be ‘captured’, ‘tranquilised’ or ‘translocated’ and only after the failure of these three stages and after a satisfaction recorded, the direction to hunt could be issued and that too after by specific compliance of the guidelines issued called as “Standard Operating Procedure to Deal with Emergency Arising Due to Straying of Tigers in Human Dominated Landscapes”.
The Courtopined that in some cases where wild animals necessarily had to be hunted, because of sudden attack, then in such a situation, Section 11(3) had been provided in the Act, subject to extreme contingencies.
The Court held that the issue stood closed as the forest department succeeded to tranquilise the identified man-eater, but the guidelines as provided under Section 11 of the Act had to be mandatorily followed by competent officials before issuance of direction to hunt any wild animal in future.
[In the matter of Hunting Down the Man Eater Leopard in the Village Bhimtal Area, In Re, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 218 of 2023, decided on 28-12-2023]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Karthik Jayashankar, Advocate
For the Respondents: S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General; Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Gajendra Tripathi, Standing Counsels
