The practice of using barbaric means and explosives to ward off wild animals is Unconstitutional

Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 7th August 2020

Shubham Awasthi Vs Union Of India

FACTS:

The Petitioner, advocate Shubham awasthi belongs to the common class of the society. He has been deeply pained by the recent incident of a pregnant elephant being accidently killed by a wildlife trap meant to ward off wild animals and other such incidents which take place due to barbaric ways and means of placing traps for scaring and warding off wild animals. It is very evident that there is a lack of awareness and lack of research regarding Human-Animal conflicts and it must be dealt in a better way. The acute shortage in forest forces has also contributed to ineffective handling of these issues. The Constitution gives no protection for the omission of duties which are unjust and also does not exempt animal laws from the jurisdiction of the legislature.

ISSUE:

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking a writ and for being violative of article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended for an issuance of Guidelines for creation of Standard Operating Procedures to tackle such incidents and fulfilling the vacancies in Forest Forces across the States of the Union. The petitioner further contended that that it is the duty of every citizen in the country to protect and preserve wildlife in our country. The constitution prohibits killing, poaching and harming any wild animal or bird. The petitioner added that the forest department across India has failed to efficiently protect the Wildlife and Humankind due to a severe shortage of staff and lack of scientific measures being used. The Forest Forces in almost every State of India face acute shortages and have to stand in for longer periods of duty due to such shortages. The Forest Forces in almost every State of India face acute shortages and have to stand in for longer periods of duty due to such shortages. Further there is also lack of equipment with the forest officers. And the forest officers themselves think that the equipment they are provided which are ineffective and sub-standard. 

ANALYSIS:

On 27th of May, a Pregnant Elephant succumbed to injuries caused by eating a Pineapple filled with Crackers which was kept by villages to wade off wild boars. The Pregnant Elephant had her Jaws broken and Tongue severely damaged by the Crackers after which she chose to stand in the nearby river. It was pointed out by the Forest Officials that the Elephant had refused help when they tried to save her. This is a common practice in various places in India where food stuff filled with crackers are used to scare wild animals from the farms of the villagers. The Forest Department across India has failed in this endeavour to protect the Wildlife and Humankind due to a severe shortage of staff and lack of scientific measures being used by general populace. The elephant incident led to a nation wide outrage and several media channels and social media platforms like twitter spread misinformation regarding the case, the lack of communication from the Forest department and the Steate government led to a media trial harassment of a certain community as they were shown as the murderers of the elephant.

JUDGEMENT:

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices Subhash Reddy and AS Bopanna issued notice to the Centre and several other states on a petition seeking to declare the practice of using barbaric means and explosives to ward off wild animals as unconstitutional, illegal and violative of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution. With this judgement it is hoped that this barbaric practice will stop and the Forest department’s issue of staff shortage will be resolved.