With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements: 1. Wild animals are the sole property of the government. 2. When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside. 3. Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

QUESTION

Medium

Environment & Ecology

Prelims 2022

With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements:

Wild animals are the sole property of the government.
When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside.
Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Select an option to attempt

Explanation

Statement 1 is Incorrect: While Section 39 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, specifies that certain wild animals are the property of the State or Central Government, this does not apply to all wild animals. Specifically, animals categorized as 'vermin' (under Schedule V) are excluded from this provision, making the absolute claim that wild animals are the 'sole property' of the government legally inaccurate.

Statement 2 is Correct: The protection status of a wild animal is determined by its listing in the Schedules of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. This legal protection is species-specific and applies to the animal wherever it is found, whether it is inside a designated Protected Area (like a National Park or Sanctuary) or outside in human-dominated landscapes.

Statement 3 is Incorrect: Under Section 11 of the Act, the Chief Wildlife Warden can only authorize the capture or killing of a protected animal if they are satisfied that the animal 'has become dangerous to human life' or is disabled/diseased beyond recovery. Mere 'apprehension' or the fear that an animal might become a danger is not a sufficient legal ground; there must be an objective determination of actual danger.

Trusted by 2L aspirants