Ipc-2.docx

Literature Review 1. CHANGING TERRAIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSHIP IN INDIA'S FORESTS, Arpitha Kodiveri In this Article it will locate the notion of environmental citizenship derived from a schematic study of the struggles by forest dwelling communities in India's forests.

It

also draw on the relationship between

environmental citizenship and law in India. It with conclude with an analysis of these changes on the environmental citizenship of forest dwelling communities. It also aims to provide a schematic discussion of how citizenship becomes the terrain on which rights and control over natural resources is being contested.

2. DEMYSTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE PROCESS IN INDIA, Shibani Ghosh In this Article it will focus on one of the most significant executive decision making processes affecting the environment in India today the granting of regulatory approvals under the Notification of September 14, 2006 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ('EP Act'). It also focus on Many of the problems and loopholes highlighted with regard to the Notification remain till date, while some have been remedied through subsequent amendments and judicial interpretation. It also aims to take the analysis a step further by looking at recent amendments and orders under the EIA Notification issued by the Government of India and considering judicial pronouncements on the provisions of the EIA Notification by the Supreme Court, various High Courts and the National Green Tribunal ('NGT').

3. GRANTING ANIMALS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION: A MISPLACED APPROACH? AN ANALYSIS IN LIGHT OF ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA V. A. NAGARAJA, Jessamine Therese Mathew & Ira Chadha-Sridhar In this Article the summary of Jallikattu case is explained in brief and also mentioned about the relation between legal personhood and rights, the problem with a rights based approach to animal welfare and protection and concluded with provisions of legislative acts and laws.

Wild Life Conservation It is a shocking truth that several animals and birds are standing on the position of destruction because of excessive poaching, illegal trading, loss of habitat pollution and deforestation. One of the biggest challenges that the government environmentalists are facing in India is to put a full stop on the killing and trading of the animals. Under the conservation only Governement introduced many projects like Project Tiger, Project Elephant, Crocodile Conservation Project, Vulture Conservation, Indian Rhino Vision 2020 etc., like this many are introduced for the purpose of conservation. Wildlife conservation is the practice of protection wild plants and animal species and their habits.Wildlife plays an important role in balancing the ecosystem and provides stability to different natural processes of the nature like rainfall, transpiration from plant,changing of temperature is also because of it, heat evolution by animals, fertility of soil, making of manure by earthworms. The goal of wildlife conservation is to the ensure that nature will be protected for future generations to enjoy and also to recognize the importance of wildlife andfor humans and other species. Shahtoosh Case: The Shahtoosh wool is derived from the soft undercoat of the Tibetan Antelope also known as Chiru. Three to four Chiru has to be killed for one shawl. In 1977 the Governement of Indiadeclared Chiru as protected animal under Shedule 1 of the Wild Protection Act, 1972. A PIL was filed in J&K High Court. In 2002 it was banned that manufacture of Shahtoosh shawl is banned.1 Hunting Hunting is the practice of killing or trapping animals or pursuing or tracking them with the intent of doing so. Hunting wildlife is most commonly done by humans for food, recreation, to remove predators that are dangerous to humans. Lawful hunting is distinguished from poaching, which is the illegal killing, trapping or capture of the hunted species. Various forms of wild animals are hunt now for the commercial purpose like horns, tusks, skin and various objects which can get from them. Animals like tigers, rhinos and elephants are hunted for the high value international trade in tiger bone, rhino horn & ivory.

1

http://www.manupatrafast.com/articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=c234464b-a575-49d8-9b060273ac0d75b4&txtsearch=Subject:%20Environment

In this case of State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan2 it has been held that hunting is an offence under Section 51(1) of the Wildlife Protection Act. In this case the Range Forest Officer filed a complaint in Magistrate's Court in writing that he the accused had shot and killed an elephant in Range Forest and had removed the tusks from the elephant. Hon'ble Supreme Court said that "Cognizance of an offence against the 'Act' can he taken by a court only on the complaint of the officer mentioned in Sec. 55 and it has been done in this case." In the case Trilok Bahadur vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh3, it was argued that whether the accused acted in the self defense or not. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a guard in Changlai camp, when on sentry duty he observed that there is a tiger. He reported the same matter to his Commander. According to it, he was ordered by his Commander to fire two or three rounds in the air. The tiger instead of fleeing came towards him and attempted to assault him. The accused had no option but to fire at the tiger. As a result the tiger died. The Deputy Commissioner sentenced the accused for 6 months simple imprisonment under section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act. A Criminal Revision was filed before the High Court. Court held him as the inference can be drawn that he was acting in good faith in defense of oneself and it can't be said that the accused was committing any offence prior to shooting the tiger that charged at him. Therefore, he will be completely protected under sub-section (2) of Sec 11. Private Defense In Trilok Bahadur vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, the High Court of Arunanchal Pradesh said that if a person acts in good faith for self-defense he can’t be make liable foe hunting Protected Areas (Sanctuaries, National Parks, and Closed Areas) India, with 2.4% of the world's land area, has 7-8% of the world's recorded species, including 46,000 plant species and 91,000 animal species. Protecting wildlife has always been an important part of Indian history. As of July 2016, protected areas (PAs) in India, which includes national parks, wildlife reserves, reserves and reserves, cover about 4.89% of the country's geographical area. The Madhya Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands currently have the highest number of national parks (nine each); followed by Kerala, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand and West Bengal (six each). The maximum number of wildlife reserves is found in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (96), followed by Maharashtra (41) and Tamil Nadu (29).

2

https://www.casemine.com/search/in?q=murad+ali+khan http://nlsenlaw.org/wildlife/national-legal-framework/high-court-cases/trilok-bahadur-v-state-of-arunachalpradesh-1979-cr-l-j-1409-gauhati-high-court/ 3

In the case of Pradeep Krishna vs. Union of India4 the petitioner, an environmentalist, challenged before the court that the order of the Department of Forest, State of Madhya Pradesh. The order permitted collection of Tendu leaves from sanctuaries and National Parks by villagers living around the boundaries in order to maintain their traditional rights. The petitioner contended that the said order violates Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, Articles 14 and 21, 48-A 86 51-A (g) of the Constitution. He also argued on two points that is (1)Whether an area declared as sanctuary and National Park under Sec. 18 can be exploited for collection of minor forest produce in violation of the restrictions contained in the Act? (2)Whether State Government has the right to exploit minor forest produce from the sanctuaries & National Parks? There should be final notification on acquisition of rights in and over the land to be included in a Sanctuary or National Park as it was not given by State Government so not liable Destruction, damaging, etc. in a Sanctuary Prohibited without Permit Causing damage to any boundary mark of the sanctuary or molesting or teasing of any wild animal or littering the grounds of sanctuary is prohibited/' Section 29 of the Act as substituted by Amendment Act of 2002, says that without the permission of Chief Wild Life Warden no one is allowed to see the animals in this amendment it is made strict on this point. In the case of Tariin Bharat Sangh v. Union of India5, the petitioner is from a social action group, concerned with the protection of environment and preservation of wildlife and protection, filed a public interest litigation for the enforcement of certain statutory notifications issued by the government in the area popularly known as "Sariska Tiger Park", which had been declared as a Sanctuary under section 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It was alleged that mining operation was being carried on under the license granted by the State Government, which was impairing the environment and the wild life within the park. Supreme Court ordered that no mining operation should be carried on within the protected area. Court send notice to the State Government to stop the mining operation.

4 5

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/wild.htm https://www.informea.org/en/court-decision/tarun-bharat-sangh-alwar-v-union-india-ors

Conservation of Forests As the name suggests it is the preservation and protection of forests. Importance of forests are that there are many trees in forests which give oxygen through which life exist and absorb the carbon dioxide which releases from human beings, through forests pollution is controlled, it also prevent soil erosion. It also plays a important role in water cycle and control moisture levels of our eco system. So the Government introduced Forest Conservation Act 1980. In Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India6, in these case there is a illegal felling of timber then Supreme Court said that the felling of trees and mining are suspended in the forest areas. No one can do the felling of tress, deforestation, mining in the forest area was ordered by Supreme Court.7 Closed Area The state government may by notification declare any area closed to hunting for such periodas may be specified in the notification. No hunting of any wild animal shall be permitted in a closed area during the period specified in the notification. Prohibition of picking, uprooting etc., of specified plants No person shall willfully pick, uproot, damage, destroy, or collect any specified plant from any forest land and area specified by notification by central government not to touch or pluck those plants or any person who is in the possess of those plants which is prohibited by the central government by the notification whether the plant is dead or alive the person is liable. No person will cultivate a plant which is prohibited without the proper license. Flora and Fauna8 India has a very rich flora and fauna. It is estimated that there are over 500 species of mammals, 200 plus species of birds and about 30,000 species of insects. In addition to the above there are hundreds of species of fish and reptiles. The Indian wild life consists of the Asian elephant, the only lions outside of Africa, the Royal Bengal tiger, the unicorn Indian rhinoceros, the wild buffalo (Indian bison), many leopards and smaller cat species, a wide variety of deer, monkeys and wild goats. . The reptile population includes a wide range of snakes, lizards and crocodiles. Birds range from colorful peacocks and parrots to large numbers of migrating water birds. A large part of the fauna is protected by law. To protect wild life, India had set up 6

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ace7e4b014971141004e https://www.legalbites.in/forest-conservation-case-importance-forest-protection/ 8 http://www.indianmirror.com/geography/geo5.html 7

66

National

Parks,

333

wildlife

reserves

and

35

zoological

gardens

in

the

country.

Indian flora has a wide range of varieties, ranging from coniferous forests to evergreen plants, from scrub to deciduous forests and dense tropical jungles to cool, temperate forests. The tropical forests in the east contrast with the pine and coniferous forest of the western Himalayas. The foothills of the Himalayas are densely overgrown with deciduous trees and shrubs, bamboos, ferns and grass. The gangetic plain, the Deccan plateu of volcanic origin, the dense lush forests of the Western Ghats - they all offer fascinating variations in habitats.

CASE ANALYSIS Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Bharadwaj v. State of Rajashtan Citation: 2002 CriLJ 179 Provisions of law: Section 40 says about the possession of wildanimal skin or any object which is prohibited, section 49 says that the purchase or receive any captive animal, read with section 51which says that without licence or breach of any licence will be liable under this section of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Brief Facts: At the house of accused situated at kumbha a search was conducted and during the search two skins of Panthor were recovered in one white bag and they were seized and the servants who are present at that time said that they are not aware of it, as the accused was in the police custody in another case. Charges were framed against him. Question of Law: Whether the accused is liable under section 40, 49 with section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act,1972? Judgement: The Accused is liable for the possession of animal object which is prohibited to kept in the house and is laible for three years imprisonment. Comments: He with the knowledge kept the skin of Panthor so he is laible there is no chance of excusing if he done with the knowledge and knowing the consequences.

Case Title: Ayyub v. State of Rajashtan

Citation: 2003 CriLJ 2954, RLW 2003 (4) Raj 2641, 2003 (4) WLC 273

Provisions of law: Section 51which says that without licence or breach of any licence will be liable under this section of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

Brief Facts: A Jeep with number RNV 2235 was confiscated by the regional forest officer, Mandrayal District, Karauli, who carries fish in violation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (in short 'the law') 1972. After registration of the case for the offense punishable under Section 51 of the Act, 1972, this jeep was caught together with fish. A.C.J.M. Karauli, in view of the provisions of Sections 39 and 50 of the Law, 1972, ordered this to be delivered jeep to the submitter under certain conditions, including the condition to provide a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 40,000 / - vide disputed order. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that according to subsection (3A) of section 50 of the law, 1972, vehicle can be given for custody in the execution of a bond for the production of the same when necessary. According to learned council there is no provision of the furniture bank Guarantee. Judgment: The accused is fined with 40 thousand rupees and his vehicle is returned.

Cases Referred: Kela Ram v. State of Rajashtan State of Karnataka v. K.Krishhnan

Comments: The main goal of the law, 1972 is for the conservation and protection of wildlife, birds and plants. Liberal approach in such cases with respect to the seized property, which is susceptible to seizure not requested because it will probably frustrate the provisions of the law. The liberal approach in such cases would perpetuate more violations related to wild animals etc.

Case Title: Mahendra Panwar v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: (C482) No. 283 of 2012

Provisions of Law: Section 39 read with section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972

Brief Facts: Three skins of leopards are recovered from the accused and charges are framed upon him. On the other hand, counsel for the state learned that police officers of no less than rank of Sub Inspector, are not authorized under Notification issued by the state government. It is further that the same official who filed the fiche has now filed the criminal complaint the case, and the magistrate has taken note of this complaint.

Judgement: In the above circumstances, after considering the legal counsel of the petitioner, and learned advice for the state, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, is thrown out summarily with the direction that both things will be merged and the process will be carried out further the officer's complaint, in the light of Article 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is further directed that the trial court will continue the process as soon as possible, if it the petitioner is languishing in prison. The copy of the order form of the trial shows that the scholar Magistrate has adjourned and given the dates in a routine way. The district judge, Dehradun, will see that the process is not unduly delayed. It is also noted that the petitioner will be free to take pleas for defense, including legal pleadings before the court.