Title: Angels Nair v Union of India
Citation: WA NO. 1311 OF 2023
Dated on: 5.1.2024
Corum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice a. Muhamed Mustaque & the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shoba Annamma Eape
Facts of the case
The appellant is the General Secretary of the NGO, “Animal Legal Force Integration”, and is an animal lover. newspaper report dated 21.01.2022 under the caption “Get nod to shoot leopard if needed” prompted the petitioner to file the writ petition. A mother leopard delivered two cubs inside an uninhabited house in Ummini Village in Akathethara Panchayat in Palakkad District. It is alleged that on getting information on 09.01.2022, the forest officials immediately took away the cubs in violation of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), to the Divisional Forest Office at Palakkad. It is further alleged that video footage was circulating in the social media that four people not in uniform came with a used cardboard box, picked up the two cubs with bare hands and rushed out hurriedly. According to the petitioner, since the forest officials took away the cubs, the mother leopard was causing threat to the villagers in search of the cubs. After consideration of the issue, the learned Single Judge found that the cubs were removed from the spot since the ground situation warranted such action on the apprehension that the cubs would be harmed by the people assembled at the spot. It was observed that attempts were made to save the lives of the cubs and the materials do not indicate that the officials have committed hunting or any other offence under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”) and that the apprehension that the leopard would be shot does not subsist since the leopard returned to its natural environment with one of its cubs. Accordingly, the writ petition was closed, Substantial proof not available for consideration.
Legal Provision
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted for protection of plants and animal species. The Act provides for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants; and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. The Act has six schedules which give varying degrees of protection. Schedule I and part II of Schedule II provide absolute protection – offences under these are prescribed the highest penalties. Species listed in Schedule III and Schedule IV are also protected, but the penalties are much lower. Schedule V includes the animals which may be hunted. The specified plants in Schedule VI are prohibited from cultivation and planting. The hunting to the Enforcement authorities is allowed in some circumstances
Case Analysis and Judgement
The learned Single Judge found that the cubs were removed from the spot since the ground situation warranted such action on the apprehension that the cubs would be harmed by the people assembled at the spot. It was observed that attempts were made to save the lives of the cubs and the materials do not indicate that the officials have committed hunting or any other offence under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 that the apprehension that the leopard would be shot does not subsist since the leopard returned to its natural environment with one of its cubs. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed off and the court gave guidelines for the Forrest officials to follow the SOP’s given by the NTCA and ordered the officials to follow the same strictly.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh
