THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Wildlife Protection (Kerala Amendment) Bill 2025, a first-of-its-kind amendment to the Central Act, to be introduced in the assembly on Thursday, could well end up as an experimental piece of legislation.
Going by the draft accessed by the TNIE, the key amendments are in contradiction with the principal Act and hence unlikely to get Presidential/Gubernatorial assent or clear judicial review. Being introduced with an evident political motive ahead of the election, the government says the bill is aimed at addressing man-animal conflict.
The amendment to section 11 is intended to empower the Chief Wildlife Warden to take sudden actions and to order to kill without delay, any wild animal if it attacked and inflicted severe injuries to any person in a public place, where people are usually gathered or in a residential area. It also proposed for population management of wild animals by way of birth control or translocation. An amendment to section 62 empowers the state government to declare any animal in Schedule II a vermin. It also proposes to shift 'Bonnet Macaque' from Schedule I to II.
Top sources said the amendments were brought in without adequate consultation with senior officials in the state forest and wildlife department. "It's the most regressive piece of legislation from a left government. If it's meant for pleasing political interests, even that purpose may not be served," said an ex-forest official.
Meanwhile, wildlife and legal experts expressed doubts over the legal standing of the amendment and whether the amendments are in line with the spirit of wildlife protection.
"The amendments to the Act, came into force in April 2023. The Schedules were re-structured. Section 61 of the Act empowers only the Union Government to alter the Schedules. The proposed state amendment to alter the Schedules would be inconsistent with the Central Act, which will obviously prevail," observed Praveen Bhargav, ex-member of the National Board for Wildlife.
He further pointed out that most of Kerala's major concerns have already been addressed in the Act. "Section 11 of the Act already empowers the State Chief Wildlife Warden to permit hunting or capture of any wild animal in Schedule I or II, by a reasoned order in writing. No permission from the Central Government is mandatory. Section 12 also empowers CWW to permit translocation of any animal in Schedule II to an alternative habitat, with the previous permission of the state government. Only in case of a wild animal in Schedule I, a prior permission from the Central Government would be mandatory for such translocation," he observed. If there's any inconsistency between state and central laws, the central law is bound to prevail, he added.
Environment lawyer advocate Harish Vasudevan said even while he believes regional amendments are required for such legislations, the amendment should not be against the general spirit of the Act. "Regarding topics that come under the concurrent list, if there's a central law, the state can fill a lacuna in the legislation. If a provision is absent, we can bring in a provision, but it should not be against any existing provision. There cannot be a statutory presumption that an animal outside the territorial limits of a wildlife sanctuary will not get protection of the Act. That is unsustainable," he added.
A number of green organisations including the Wayanad Prakruthi Samrakshana Samithi have come out against the legislation. Mumbai-based Humane World for Animals India has written to state forest minister AK Saseendran urging him to withdraw the proposed amendment. The bill to be presented in the state assembly is likely to be sent to the subject committee on Thursday itself. The government plans to pass the legislation in the current session itself.
Key amendments
* Provided also that where such a wild animal has attacked any person and caused or inflicted severe injuries to him, or such animal is found in a public place where people are usually gathered for various purposes or in a residential area, the Chief Wildlife Warden may, upon a report from the District Collector or a Chief Conservator of Forests, without delay, by order in writing and stating the reasons therefore, permit any person to kill, tranquilise, capture or translocate such animal or cause such animal to be killed, tranquilised, captured or translocated.
* The Chief Wildlife Warden may, if he is satisfied that the population of any wild animal specified in Schedule II has highly increased in any area and has become dangerous to human life or property (including standing crops on any land) take any suitable step for scientific management of such animals by way of population management without killing, by birth control or by translocation of such animal
* Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the State Government is of the opinion that as per any scientific study report submitted by an expert body appointed by the Government and the report of the Chief Wildlife Warden, the number of any wild animal specified in Schedule II has become dangerous to human life or property (including standing crops on any land outside the boundaries of forests or protected areas), the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare any such animal to be vermin for any area in the State and for such period not exceeding six months at a time and such wild animal shall be deemed not to be included in Schedule II for such area and for such period as specified in the notification.