RAIPUR: In a controversial move, the Chhattisgarh Forest Department has directed officials to use ‘social ostracisation’ as a frontline strategy to curb wildlife offences across the state.
Internal documents from a high-level review meeting, accessed by this newspaper, reveal a directive issued by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) Arun Kumar Pandey. The order signals a shift in approach, extending beyond conventional legal prosecution to include social isolation as a deterrent.
The decision has ignited debate over legal ethics and human rights. Forest authorities have reportedly been instructed to ‘weaponise’ social boycott as a means of dismantling poaching networks operating within the state.
Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs) have been asked to collaborate with village mukhiyas, religious leaders, local organisations and social influencers to socially exclude individuals caught setting traps or engaging in wildlife crimes. The department believes the initiative will deter illegal hunting and strengthen the protection of forest areas.
However, the directive has drawn significant legal scrutiny. “Social ostracisation is an inhuman practice. Disconnecting an individual from their community amounts to endorsing a form of ‘civil death’ and bypasses the judiciary. Punishment must be administered by law, not through state-sponsored mob action that strips a person of their basic social existence,” said Dr Dinesh Mishra, an ophthalmologist who campaigns against the practice of social boycott.
A formal complaint has been lodged with Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai by wildlife enthusiast Nitin Singhvi. The complaint alleges that the forest department is resorting to extra-judicial measures to mask shortcomings in investigation and enforcement.
According to sources, the directive also proposes publicly displaying the names, evidence and photographs of alleged offenders in village squares in order to shame perpetrators. Forest officers have further been instructed to maintain and regularly update a detailed database of known offenders and suspects within their jurisdictions to enable close monitoring and prompt action.
State Forest Minister Kedar Kashyap declined to state clearly whether he supported or opposed the directive. “Decisions are usually taken with the protection of forests and wildlife, and the well-being of people, in mind,” he said.
Critics argue that social boycott, involving exclusion from community, economic and cultural life, undermines the rule of law and violates constitutional protections, raising serious concerns about due process and fundamental rights.