Latest News
Back
Document:
SC: Hunting Of Wild Animals In Certain Cases; PIL Challenged for it's Permission
A public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Section 55(c) and Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 was dismissed by the Supreme Court today.
Section 9 of the Act states that no person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under section 11 and section 12 which grants permission for special purposes.
Section 11 of the Act authorises the Chief Wild Life Warden to permit hunting of wild animals to be permitted in certain cases, only after he is satisfied that any wild animal specified in Schedule I has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery.
Section 55(c) in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 provides that (c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.
In the SC, Red Lynx Confederation had proceeded with a petition contending that these provisions are 'unconstitutional and inhumane'. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Secretary Government of India by a way of interim relief to destroy all the trophies in the house of Nawab Sh. Shafath Ali Khan and other offenders.
It also sought direction to centralise all the weapon license holders data and activities through an intelligence software for strict monitoring of crop protection and sports category to avoid illegal use weapon and ammunition(explosives).
It lastly prayed that the committee for 'formulating Investigation for reported matter under section 55(c) of Wildlife Protection Act' preferably be formed under Honourable Retired Justice of NGT, or any High Court of India or Sitting/Retired Justice of Supreme Court who have expertise and specialisation in Forest and Wildlife.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph at the time of dismissing the plea said that,“Besides what is noted above, the relief sought in prayer clause 1 cannot be granted. Moreover the reliefs which have been sought in prayer clauses 2 and 3 trench upon an area of policy. No valid basis has been indicated in the petition in respect of the prayer for challenging the constitutional validity of Section 55(c) and Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972.
In the absence of any cogent foundation in the pleadings both on facts and law, we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32. A petitioner who moves the court purportedly in public interest is not exempt from observing the essential principles of pleading.”
The bench further clarified that it is open for the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law and it has not adjudicated upon any matter which may arise in an appropriate case.
Document:
