1

Indian Forest and Wildlife Administration,

A Critique

“Nature provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed”—

Mahatma Gandhi
 2

Contents P.no

1.)Introduction- - - - - - - - - - - 4

2.)Forest Protection- - - - - - - - - - 5

3.)Forest Administration in India- - - - - - - - - 5

4.)Acts and Administration Structure today- - - - - - - - 6

5.)Administrative Structure of the Forest Department - - - - - 9

6.)Wild life conservation- - - - - - - - - 10

7.)Wildlife Administration- - - - - - - - - - 10

8).Administartive Difficulties and solutions- - - - - - - 13

9)Judicial View of Forest & Wild life Administartion - - - - - 15

10) Flaws & Loop holes in forest acts & administration- - - - - - 16

11.)Government role in Administring laws Effectively- - - - - - 16

12.)Findings- - - - - - - - - - - - 17

13.)Conclusion- - - - - - - - - - - 18

14)Table of Cases- - - - - - - - - - - 19

15.)Bibilography - - - - - - - - - - - 20
 3

Summary:-

Research Methodology
Aims and Objectives:
This paper is aimed at studying the various laws, policies and action plans enacted by the state in
order to protect forests and wildlife and the manner in which these are administered. The Primary
object has been to focus on the manner in which the administration has been envisaged by the
state, the impediments this poses to the protection of the forests and the wildlife, and the manner
in which the Indian bureaucracy has dealt and failed with the same. Camparing with international
scenario.
Method of Analysis:
I had begun with a historical analysis of the manner in which forest and wildlife administration
has begun. I have looked at the two fields separately, in order to see the different developments
in the two fields although there are various similarities, which have been highlighted. I have
attempted to understand the various difficulties faced in the course of this administration through
both the theoretical perspective and through fieldwork. Critisicim on U.N.O and their
implimentations. Lastly i have attempted to analyse the methods which are working towards
saving the forests and wildlife and has suggested solutions to the administrative problems where
possible.
Scope of the Project:-
This project does not purport to be a comprehensive study on all the laws and policies relating to
forest and wildlife; it merely tries to enumerate the trend of the administration over the years, the
flaws in the same and the manner in which some have been rectified. It has also examined the
areas in which the administrative efficiency has actually regressed. Discussed breifely about
U.N.O negligence on world life protection across the globe. However, I was unable to actually
visit any of the protected areas, due to the short duration of the assignment. In addition, the
researcher has looked at only limited case law to examine the judiciary’s opinion of the
administration. How the tribals effected by administration of Forests acts.
Chapterisation:
This paper has been divided into sections to maintain continuity. The first section gives an
introduction to the nature of forests and wildlife and why they need to be protected. The second
section deals with the various policies and laws important to the administration of forests. It also
deals with the manner in which the officials have actually changed the manner of management
progressively. The third section deals with the administration under the Wildlife Acts, policies
and plans. The fourth section deals with the various problems faced by the administration, both
in theory and practice, and offers some solutions after identifying the best practices.
 4

The world is home to very diverse and rich wildlife which includes over infinite number of
species. Forests are very valuable gift of nature, which have moderating effect on climate/
environment. Wild life is a Part and Parcel of Environment, i.e forests which constitutes wealth
of the nation. Painfully, it also includes ‘N’ number of endangerd species. A great deal has been
made in the last sixty years to preserve the nature habitats as well as the population of the wild
life across the world land scape. Protection and conservation of forests and wildlife are essential
to maintain the earth’s health and environment. The earth is the only known living planet and it is
because of its special environment and ecology which are life-supporting. Forests are part and
parcel of our environment.

They are one of the most valuable resources and gifts of nature. They play a key role in the
maintenance climate, rain-patterns, water conservation,soil conservation.

They are the natural home of much type of animals, birds, reptiles, insects etc. They supply
timber, fuel, medicines, and wood for peeper-pulp and raw materials for many industries. The
increasing depletion and destruction of wildlife is a source of great concern. One out of every
seven persons of the world live in India.

1. Introduction:-

The increase in the population ,technology,and economy gain along with population has
increased the depletion of forest and natural resources despite india being kniown for its
biodiversity.everyone runs behind money and their own self interest and hunger for money has
Although India had been known for its biodiversity,.the situation of the environment is in a
unhealthy way that our natural resources are beung destroyed and in the name of development
the forests are being deployed with the wildlife .in this world the animals r bring killed and
forests are being destroyed by affecting the bio diversity
For example there is a pyramid of animals ,there are grasshoppers which are eaten by the frogs
and the frogs are eaten by the snakes if we start destroying snakes because its poisonous or
indirectly affect them by destroying forests then the frogs count will be more which results in the
failure of bio diversity.these natural happenings of the animal is similar with the forests as well
.so all these should be left to their own instead of the human involvement.this is where the
ecological balance is affected .
A bird cant be kept inside a cage just because it’s a rare species or it will be killed by someone
because the birds nature is to fly that is all what it has along with the survival tactics it can decide
whether it can live or not .the forest copver has reduced till 19 % which is alarming factor .the
first act being passed was being pssed was in 1952 and then in 1972 the wildlife protection act
but still there are many problems faced becsue of illegal poaching there has been dabataes going
on to give impo to traditional style of living and the locals which is one way a helping factor for
presving wildlife
1

1 Chris Blair, “Seeing the People for the Trees: Implications of Social Forestry for the Training of Forestry Extension
 5

2. Forest Protection:-

Forest has been of great importance to mankind since prehistoric days. 60% of the earth once
covered with forest. With the development of civilization, large areas have been cleared to make
way for farms, mines, towns and roads. Today about 30% of earth is still forested.1.

Forest protection is a general term describing methods purported to preserve or improve a forest
threatened or affected by abuse. The types of abuse that forest protection seeks to prevent
include:

 Aggressive logging or cutting of tress in high number because of the influence of

corporate sectors

 Expanding city development caused by population explosion

There is considerable debate over the effectiveness of forest protection methods.

Enforcement of laws regarding protection of forest land is weak or non-existent in most
parts of the world.2

3. FOREST ADMINISTRATION in India:-

History of the forest acts:-

The Forest Department was shaped in 1864, which was trailed by the Forest Act, 1865.The
division controlled the forests on a little scale and a genuine managerial structure became
effective notwithstanding, just with the institution of the Forest Act, 1878, when the British
understood the significance of the Indian woods as long lasting income.3
The Act brought all lands under the government and especially the lans which were of business
use and commercial value and left the rest of the lands which were of no use to the Along these
lines the refinement between the different sorts of timberlands which still subsists, discovers its
sources here. The British set up a complex managerial structure and deliberately secured all
backwoods for timber.4
The Forest Policy 1894, in its objectives moved far from this and gave more significance to open
profit and agrarian utilize; henceforth the approach isolated the timberlands into different classes.
In any case the legislature was just allowed to de-save the backwoods under strict conditions
where the advantage would far exceed the antagonistic impacts of changing over timberland
arrive into rural land.5 This arrangement would allow the British in identifying the privileges of
the different people who asserted an enthusiasm for the land and to stake an unequivocal claim to

2. Forest protection Wikipedia

3.nljsu.lawreview.
4. UPADHYAY & UPADHYAY, HANDBOOK ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [hereinafter ‘Upadhyay’] Vol. I, at 21-
22 (2002).
 6

all incomes for the state. Despite the fact that there were different arrangements for the security
of the nearby needs, as it were, and the British kept on utilizing the woods for the advantage of
the domain, with the higher echelons of organization having incredible measures of caution,
regardless of the different arrangements empowering local people to assert their rights in this and
Indian Forest Act, 1927.6

4. Acts and Administrative Structure Today:-

a.) Indian Forest Act, 1927:-

The IFA does not differentiate that much from the earlier Acts to a great extent and unfortunately
after independence the government has not madea significant change to the administrative
structure as there are the same unclear objectives which prevailed in the early days during the
british rule in india .7
Under the Act, The state could determine that a forest was one of three categories, being, a
reserved forest, a protected forest or a village forest. In order to protect these categories of
forests, the Act permits the state government to grant the forests officers
A person delineated a FSO(forest station officer) is given the exclusive power to determine
whether any person can claim or have interest in the forest land, irrespective of which category it
belongs to. This shows that it has not deviated much from the earlier policy during british india
and still leads to more power vested in the state and polciies differ in object One of the main
points is that this Act, though in force, is not considered important while framing policies any
longer.8

b.) Indian Forest Policy, 1952:

In 1952, a new2 policy came which gave more importance on the role of the forests as revenue
earners .but The government accepted that the mode of administration in forests was
unprofessional so far However, the issue with this approach was that it only repeated the pilgrim
standards and fortified state rights regarding the organization and administration of timberlands.
The policy was very bad as there were increasing competing interests and the administratords
who pursue its own interest.the corporates started entering and which became as a unevitable
factor for the admin which aimed at their own interest and this policy was unsatisfactory9.

c.) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 transferred the management of forests to the
concurrent list and the Centre was now entitled to enact legislation with respect to forests and
wildlife along with the states.10
the Central Government passed the FCA. This Act sought to prevent the state from disposing of
forest lands in an arbitrary manner to satisfy the political party’s short term goals. 11.becasue prior
25.Nljsu.law review
6. legal essays.com
7. 001); Guha & Gadgil, State Forestry and Social
Conflict in British India, 123 PAST AND PRESENT 141 (1989)
 7

to elections, the party in power would attempt to appease its vote bank by offering forest land to
them. This alongside the strategy of giving more noteworthy weightage to development and
business works as opposed to taking a gander at woods as a mind boggling framework basic to
the survival of the nation has prompted broad deforestation even post-freedom
under the Act there has been an adjustment in the managerial set up whereby the Central
Government is qualified to advice the administration on either conceding consent to utilize
timberlands for non-woods purposes or some other issue the Central government may so want.
However, even under the Act there were several problems where the administrators were on the
side of the smugglers who illegally cut timber and sell for foreign lands for money .they are
directly involved in the act either by cutting on their own cost or people or interest or they are
involved indirectlyby letting some people cut the timber for money they get as bribe. In order to
reduce the corruption of the administration, the 1989 Amendment Act permitted forest officers to
be prosecuted under the Act and be subject to the same fines as other persons.12
e.) Indian Forest Policy, 1988:-

there were significant changes shown by the state when the new policy was being done in the
year 1988.The principle aim of the same was to ensure environmental stability and maintenance
of ecological balance.benefits. This policy saw a renewed importance for the locals and forests
with respect to their rights to live and manage the forests. In this manner it followed from the
social forestry aims. However, the main object was to increase forest cover and this would even
be at the cost of people if necessary. Now however, this policy is used extensively and does
provide a good starting point to forest administration, although it leaves the private sector to get
materials from farm forestry, without providing for the same. In addition it gives too little
importance to the needs of the tribals and the locals and does not effectively address the effects
of pressure of the human and livestock population on the forests, nor does it provide for
wasteland development.14

f.) Joint Forest Management Programme :-

he JFMP has attempted to remedy some of these flaws of the 1988 policy. This also sees people
as partners in the administration of forests rather than as a harmful element which must be
controlled or excluded. This programme has been adopted because the previous administrative
strategies have failed to arrest the degradation of forests in India. This has attempted to make
protection of forests a rewarding activity and several states have adopted the programme,
although they have retained different levels of control over the land. This was considered the
most cost-effective mode of administering the forests, but the rights of the people were still
limited to the extent that the state allowed. This system has been used extensively in some states,
especially in Kerala where, in the Periyar Tiger Reserve, the people who earlier poached and
engaged in felling of trees were given a hand in the management of the reserve. They have been
given employment as tourist guides and they are now zealous protectors of the forests and
wildlife. This has not however, been recognised in all states where the locals are still considered
 8

hindrances to the administration of forests, possibly as a result of the Centralising trend of all the
laws and policies. The forests are still in grave danger due to understaffed forest officials and the
administration needs to thus recognise the benefits of such programmes.15

5. Administrative Structure of the Forest Department:

In spite of the debates on whether the IFA needs to be amended or not, after the formation of the
Ministry of Environment and Forests, there has been a revision in the entire structure and the
mode of functioning. In contemporary times, almost every state has elected to amend the IFA to
suit its own purpose and now there is a complex machinery and administrative structure at the
National and State level and closely follows the following pattern:16
1. At the National Level, there exists a Director General of Forests, who frames all the
policies and assists in framing the legislation;
2. He is in charge of the Forests Conservation Division, the Survey Utilisation Division, the
Forest Protection Division, the Forest Policy Division and the Forest Research and
Training Divisions. Each of these has its own complex structures, but effectively these
organisations administer and formulate policy at the National level.17
At the state level the following structure has been envisaged3:
1. At the head of every state, there exists a Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, who is
actually the technical advisor of the state. Normally no legislation or policy is framed
without his input and advice;
2. Next in the hierarchy comes the Additional Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, who
assists him in his functions;
3. Then come the Chief Conservators of Forests, who may directly be in charge of a large
circle, or may command around two to three circles;
4. The Conservators of Forests command a circle each;
5. The Divisional Forest Officer is in charge of administration at the district level and is in
command of approximately four to five ranges;
6. The Range Officers are in control of a Range and this is at the Taluka level. They are in
control of around four to five blocks;
7. The Foresters are in charge of a block and they control around four to five beats;
8. Finally there is the Forest Guard who actually patrols the beats, which constitute a few
square kilometres. Recently they have been granted almost all powers necessary for them
to conserve the forests including the power to file FIRs in criminal matters, and to fine
offenders. He is the one who actually spends time in the forests and tries to prevent
unauthorised persons from destroying the forests or acting in any manner contrary to the
Acts.18

311-14- summary of forests acts(google)

15. Tiwari Committee. Report of the Committee for Recommending Legislative Measures and Administrative
Machinery for Ensuring Environmental Protection
16.Administartive section forest laws.ministry of environment
17. Indian Forest Policy, Forest Law, and Forest Rights Settlement:--sreechandran nljsu.
 9

Although the Centre has a recent role in the administration of forests, it enjoys increasing powers
especially at the level of policy formulation. Since the revenue from the forests accrue to the
state, the government policy is likely to be more long term and the interests of the centre and the
states do not coincide on many counts.
New Steps: the Conservation of forests and Natural Eco-systems Act (Bill):19

The MoEF(Mid Ocean Escort Force) has attempted to draft a Bill to replace the IFA and to
change the policy and objectives of the same. This Bill again tries to maximise the power of the
state with greater amounts of control increasing concentration of decisions making at the centre.
Under this Act, an FSO, is appointed in order to settle all claims with respect to land notified to
be converted into reserve forests. The FSO is vested various powers in order to carry out his
functions including the power to determine the “carrying capacity” of the forest and disallow
activities which the forest cannot support. This Bill largely reduces the scope for village forests
and community participation. Instead it vests complete management and control in the state and
the administrative staff. This along with the limited importance it gives to the tribals would be
considered its greatest flaws. However, this Bill has not been tabled before the Parliament even
today. Thus the Forest Administration needs to take account of the JFMPs to a great extent to
ensure true forest protection and conservation.

6. Wild Life Conservation:-

Wildlife conservation is the practice of protecting endangered plant and animal species and their
habitats. Among the goals of wildlife conservation are to ensure that nature will be around for
future generations to enjoy and to recognize the importance of wildlife and wilderness lands to
humans.[1] Many nations are government agencies dedicated to wildlife conservation, which help
to implement policies designed to protect wildlife. Numerous independent nonprofit
organizations also promote various wildlife conservation causes. 4

Wildlife conservation has become an increasingly important practice due to the negative effects
of human activity on wildlife. An endangered species is defined as a population of a living being
that is at the danger of becoming extinct because of several reasons. Either they are few in
number or are threatened by the varying environmental or predation parameters. The endangered
species in India have been identified by different national and international organisations like the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF), International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) and the Wildlife Institute of India (WII).

418. Bhat Sairam, OV Nandimath, An Overview of the Legal Regime Relating to Conservation of Wildlife in India,
Centre for Environmental Law, Education, Research and Advocacy, National Law School of India University,
Bangalore, 2002.
19. Nandan Nelivigi, “Biodiversity, Wildlife and Protected Area Management in India: A People Centred Approach”,
37 (1) JILI (1995), p. 145-181.
20. M.K. Ramesh, “Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 An Agenda for Reform”, Prof. OV Nadimath, Bhat Sarim, Reading
Material on Law of Wildlife Protection and Conservation of Forests, Centre for Environmental Law Education
Research and Advocacy, Bangalore.
 10

7. WILDLIFE ADMINISTRATION:-

Wildlife is synonymous with the wild biodiversity and its status is linked directly to maintenance
of the life supporting processes of nature. The wildlife is considered to be a part of the food chain
which is essential to support this planet and definitely warrants protection. This is especially in
light of the current concerns to maintain the ecosystem as a whole. However, the plight of the
animals is getting worse every year and therefore it is necessary to examine the administrative
system and suggest means to ensure effective conservation of these species.22

7.1 History:-

Wildlife protection could be seen for the first time in certain notification by the state
administrative authorities around 1927, but this was mainly to protect hunting reserves.The first
time the Central government recognised protected habitats was in the 1952 National Forest
policy where the government emphasised the need to protect the wildlife through special laws
and the setting-up of sanctuaries and large-scale national parks. To this end, they constituted the
Central Board of Wildlife under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Since wildlife was
exclusively a state subject, could only urge and advise the states to act in a certain manner.

Therefore it can be seen that conservation of wildlife as a whole has only recently come within
the consciousness of the legislators and most efforts have been concerned with the protection of
limited species without looking at the holistic approach. Unfortunately, this trend has continued
even after the passing of the WPA.23

7.2 Acts and Administrative Structures Today:

The Centre Enacted the WPA on the request of some of the states, and after the 42 nd Amendment
Act, made it applicable to all states. The Act seeks to protect wildlife through the creation of:
1. National parks;and
2. Sanctuaries; and recently,
3. Conservation reserve
4. Community reserve.

The recognition of land as part of these areas decrees that the rights of people living in or making
their livelihood through these areas, if disturbed, be duly recognised and settled. Due to the broad
definition of the term wildlife, which includes the habitat of the wildlife as well, the entire
ecosystem and the biodiversity is preserved by limiting the rights. The distinction in the rights
 11

and the manner of notification between National Parks a 5nd Sanctuaries seems flawed however,
and before determining the level of traditional rights, a more thorough scientific approach is
necessary rather than the current model of state discretion.
The Act envisages a complex administrative structure where the Central Government is
empowered to appoint a Director of Wildlife Preservation along with assistant directors and
various other employees to assist him in his functioning. At the state level, the Wildlife
Department is headed by a Chief Wildlife Warden .He is in charge of the Wildlife and Assistant
Wildlife Wardens and together they are in charge of actual administration of the Act. The Act
provides for a National Board of Wildlife and for State Boards for Wildlife which are supposed
to promote the conservation and development of wild life and forests by such measures as they
think fit. In addition, the Act mandated that every state appoint a collector to determine the rights
of any person under the land which has been notified as a sanctuary. The State government was
mandated to constitute an advisory committee to advise the department on the measures to be
taken for better conservation and management of sanctuaries including the participation of
people in and around the sanctuary.
An important aspect to administrating the wildlife and its habitat is that in India most protected
areas are inhabited by local communities, who are heavily dependent on the same. There is thus a
constant conflict between the human rights and animal welfare activists with respect to the rights
in the forest and this makes administration very difficult. Human rights activists claim that tribal
rights are denied, and at the same time, the administration is throwing open the protected habitats
to mining and other so called development projects which are ruining the habitats completely and
are completely against the object of the Act. A middle path needs to be achieved and the Act has
tried to provide for one, and locals have been given a greater role than any of the forest Acts,
especially in those which are national parks and that have been delineated as conservation
reserves by the state.25
This is very important because history can throw up several examples to show that the future of
various endangered species has been determined by the decisions of policy makers who often
have no information of the ground realities regarding the actual habitat of the species. There have
been innumerable cases where the policy makers seem to frame the law taking into account
nothing but their limited knowledge at a seat far from the domain of the wildlife they try to
protect. These ill-informed reforms in fact tend to worsen the plight of these animals. There is
therefore need for more field-work based and scientific studies to give better information on the
ranging and habitat use than the conventional natural history methods. This would ensure that the
laws are adequate and the lands and the mandate of the laws can be administered effectively.
One of the most important aspects is the implementation of the existing laws against the
poachers, who are driven by a huge international demand for animal parts. The problem is that
the rampant poaching that occurs is often done by politically well-connected poachers who kill
purely for pleasure or huge revenues without any compunction whatsoever. Despite the stringent
laws against the same in the WPA, the administrators often have to let them off because of their
connections and the enforcers often are unable to do anything to prevent them. This is

525. Nandan Nelivigi, “Biodiversity, Wildlife and Protected Area Management in India: A People Centred Approach”,
(1) JILI (1995), p. 145-181.
 12

exacerbated by the fact that the officials are heavily understaffed and often do not have access
even to the basic facilities such as transport, education, housing, especially in the lower rungs.
Salaries are low and there are too many encounters where officials are killed by poachers and
timber thieves. This is a definite problem which needs to be countered and again giving locals
responsibility might help.

Recently, in 2002, a New NWAP 2002-2016, was released, which has focused mainly on the
manner in which wildlife should be conserved. It looks at legally notified areas as the main tool
along with the participation of communities and sensitisation of developmental factors towards
conservation issues. The NWAP recognises the need for legislators to become more ecologically
sensitised along with other citizens. Short term economic goals should not be permitted to
undermine ecological security. By declaring these natural sites as ecologically sensitive zones
under the EPA, the government can regulate all developmental activities in these areas and
censure that the wildlife is looked at. One of the problems is that they have only looked at the
administration of protected areas, to the detriment of the biodiversity outside the area. The Plan
approves and gives a great thrust to the idea of community reserves, which has been added on by
the 2002 Amendment Act. One problem is that the role of the Panchayats has still not been
recognised in forest administration. Nonetheless the plan is a step forward and steps should be
taken to incorporate the suggestions in the administration of wildlife.26
Wildlife laws in India can be traced back to early third century BC, when Ashoka, the Emperor,
codified a law for the preservation of wildlife and environment. Thereafter came several laws
among which, the first codified law was the Wild Bird Protection Act, 1887, enacted by the
British Government. The Government of India brought for the first time a comprehensive act, the
Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972, which was later amended and changes were brought in as
the need arose. Furthermore, to protect the wildlife, the Government of India also became a
signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) since October, 1976.
Besides WPA and CITES; the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C), 1973; Customs Act, 1962; Indian Forest Act, 1927; Forest Conservation Act, 1981;
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are some of the important weapons available for
check and control of wildlife offences including trade.27

Wild Life Protection Act (WPA), 1972 provides for the protection of Wild animals, birds and
plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. It extends to the
whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The act includes all animals like birds,
mammals etc. While the act clearly defines hunting it also prohibits the usage, supply etc. of
animal articles, Animal article means an article made from any captive animal or wild animal,
other than vermin, and includes an article or object in which the whole or any part of such animal
has been used and ivory imported into India.
Section 9 of the Act prohibits hunting of wild animals and birds specified in Schedule I, II, and
III and IV, except as provided under Sections XI and XII. This classification has been made
keeping in mind the significance and population of wildlife. Those highly threatened find a place
in Schedule I.
As of punishment for offences, Section 51 of the Act prescribes a maximum imprisonment of six
years, Rs 25,000 fine or both for hunting animals and birds specified on Schedule I.
 13

8. ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES AND SOLUTIONS

The Administrators themselves acknowledge various problems in the manner in which the forests
and wildlife habitats are administered and they are often unable to fulfil their mandate.

Problems and Solutions: Theory and Practice:-

There are innumerable factors which interfere in the administration of the Forests and the
Wildlife. For one, the FCA, vests great amounts of power in the Central Government, while at
the same time, the National Forest Policy 1988, tries to give the locals more power in
management of forests in line with the 73 rd and 74th Amendments. This makes administration
very difficult since the officials have to follow conflicting orders while protecting the forests.
What needs to be noted is that there are various competing interests with respect to forests,
which include the Wildlife lovers, the industrialists, the rural activists and the foresters
themselves. In administration, the foresters have tried very hard to retain absolute control over
the forest lands and the total discretion which goes with the same, while outwardly upholding
scientific expertise in the management of forests. In addition, the administrators have, either at
their own behest, or due to political pressure, consistently put the interests of the industrial
community over ecological integrity and the local communities. The problem is that the Acts
don’t recognise these various competing interests and the different Acts contemplate and give
weightage to different interests.
In fact, the laws relating to protection of the wildlife tend to conflict with the laws relating to
development; this often puts the administration in a dilemma as to which laws to follow and
since the MoEF is very weak, compared to the commercial interests at the national level,
development takes place at the cost of the environment. These interests need to be reconciled, by
making the developmental laws subject to the laws protecting the wildlife and their habitat.
This difference in polices also leads to confusion among the locals and administration since
forest officials cannot penalise the locals for following another policy set by another wing of the
government. Mr. Singh cited one illustration where the animal husbandry department required
persons in hilly areas to keep goats. However these goats had no grazing area except the forests,
and thus they came to head with the forest department. Thus there seems a definite need for a
holistic approach to maintaining the environment, biodiversity in particular, which will make for
easier enforcement.
The proposed Forest Bill, which has been in the pipeline for several years, was supposed to solve
this problem, but the legislature has not approved of the same. There is definite necessity for the
same along with a more integrated approach to forest and wildlife, where both are paid equal
attention and yet are looked at together to ensure more effective administration of flora and
fauna, especially since Wildlife has been recognised very recently as important enough to have a
separate department for its conservation. In addition, the EPA, which purportedly provides for an
administrative structure does not deal extensively with either forests or wildlife.
 14

Another problem associated with these Acts is that they utilise a top-down approach where one
or two representatives sign an international treaty and then, since the same is binding on the
country, sit with some experts to formulate a law in accordance with those obligations. The
people who might actually be affected by the law and who might have constructive suggestions
on how the problems might actually be resolved, since they have a stake in the issue are not even
aware for most part of the proposed legislations, forget being consulted in the process of
formulation of the same.
The Forest Officials claim that the administration is unnecessarily being made scapegoats for the
state of the forests today, whereas the actual reasons for the same are exploding human and cattle
populations, which lead to a demand on resources which the forest cannot meet. The Forest
Departments are often helpless because of constant human encroachment and the lack of wildlife
corridors, which are even more difficult to maintain. They do not even have the funds or the
power to acquire more land bordering on the forests to keep the humans away. They claim that
the Centre must permit the administrators greater power in deciding how to actually manage the
forests, instead of merely forcing them to follow directions.
This attitude has also come in the way of the JFMPs(joint finance mortgaging programme) which
the Centre has been encouraging. This programme constitutes a joint effort at administration by
both the villagers and the state to protect and renew degraded forests. The bureaucracy has
rejected this to a large extent because of the reduction on their powers and in addition the state
has not taken account of regional differences while streamlining and adapting these programmes
to individual states. However, the Central government has taken a step forward in admitting that
the earlier failures were possibly due to a top-down approach in administration where few forest
and wildlife guards attempted to protect the forest in opposition to the locals, instead of in
cooperation with them.

9. Judicial View of Forest and Wildlife Administration:

Often in cases when the states or the administration does nothing to protect the forests and
wildlife, the Courts have had to intervene and ensure that the forests and the wildlife actually are
protected and true conservation takes place. This is done through the mechanisms of PILs,
innovative interpretation of Article 21 and protection of human rights, and development of
environmental principles.
One such instance is that of T.N. Godavarman Thriumalpad v. Union of India, where the court
set up a Centrally Empowered Committee to determine the grievances of all persons against the
formation and determination of rights, and the administrative corruption with respect to protected
areas. Such a Grievance mechanism is essential to settle the different interests in forest lands and
the present mechanism envisaged by the Act is inadequate because the same department is
deciding the matter and hearing the grievances as well while settling rights.

There are many other cases where the Courts have had to intervene to restore justice when the
administration, due to ambiguities has been unable to manage the forests and protected areas
 15

properly. An illustration can be seen in the case of Nagarhole Budakattu Hakku Sthaapana
Samiti v. State f Karnataka, where the officials had permitted a Resort to function in the midst
of a National Park. The Court, after examining the issue claimed that this was contrary to the
FCA, and ordered the resort to stop all activities and handover the land to the state.
Thus the Court has interfered with the administration on many occasions to ensure that the
administrative machinery is taking note of the legislative provisions and interpreting the
provisions for better conservation of the forest. However for most part the Court has tended to
trust the policy decisions of the Centre and refuses to intervene in the same.

shahtoosh case-36

The Shahtoosh wool is derived from the soft undercoat of the Tibetan Antelope (also known as
Chiru), which has to be killed before its fleece is removed. Three to four Chiru have to be killed
to weave only one shawl. Each shawl can cost several thousand dollars in the international
market.
In 1977, the Government of India declared the Chiru as protected under Schedule I of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act of India, 1972. Killing of Chiru is also in contravention to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), of which India is also a
signatory as mentioned earlier.

A PIL or Public Interest Litigation was filed in the J&K High Court seeking implementation of
the provisions of their Wildlife (Protection) Act as well as CITES which prohibits the import of
Shahtoosh into India. On May 1, 2000, the Honorable High Court issued a judgment forcing the
government to enact and enforce its wildlife law. Finally in 2002 the manufacture of Shahtoosh
shawls has finally been banned in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

10. Flaws and loop holes in forest acts and administration:-

In my personal words, forest acts were drafted in excellent way but poor in implementation of
laws. Indian Government getting no affect in deforestation of Forest lands in the name of
development. Grabbing the lands of tribals and destroying the forest lands affects the natural
habitats of the Forest lands. Permitting the unlawful mining in Forest lands, influencing the
government officials in achieving their Permissions for mining and performing illegal activities.
Though the provisions in the acts are prohibiting the dangerous and harmful activities affecting
the forests, Ministries must take proper inspection on the administration and execution of laws
by officials.

11. Government role in administering laws affectively:-

The high-level National Advisory Council wants better implementation of the Forest Rights Act
to ensure tribals receive their entitlements. But the ministry has rejected its proposals
 16

The National Advisory Council (NAC) has suggested ways to improve and reform the Forest
Rights Act that the United Progressive Alliance government introduced in 2006. According to
latest reports, though, the tribal affairs ministry has rejected incorporating these suggestions in
the law.

The Act, aimed at restoring forestland to tribals and increasing their access to timber and forest
produce, gave tribals certain rights that they do not enjoy. In many tribal-dominated states, the
dispossession and alienation of tribals is believed to have led to an increase in Maoist activity.

With economic empowerment of tribal communities and forest-dwellers as its primary objective,
the FRA was once seen as a potential tool for central and state governments to curtail the
influence of the Maoists.

But the law has always been contentious and ambiguous in many aspects. According to a status
report released by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) in August last year, of the 2.9 million
claims settled under the FRA, only 1.6% offered community rights and most of those did not
include rights over minor forest produce (MFP). The focus was mostly on giving individual titles
to agricultural and residential land.

The NAC’s working group on tribal matters believes that the Act has been poorly implemented
and has many loopholes. It recommended:

 Transparency in the rights recognition process as too many claims were being rejected.
 Arbitrary decisions were being made at the district and lower levels, which should be
curbed.
 The Act allows for collective rights over forestland and resources, which is not being
implemented. More proactive involvement of the government is required in this and in
extending timber rights.
 primacy of the gram sabha as the quasi-judicial body that makes real decisions must be
reinforced. The Act provides for it but the states and Centre have so far been trying to
diminish the role of the village council.

The NAC, a high-level advisory body that was constituted to set the UPA government’s agenda
for the social sector, also made proposals for improving implementation of the National Rural
 17

Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) and had forwarded suggestions regarding the Food
Security Bill. The government has however not taken these suggestions on board.

12. Findings:-

 How has the manner of administrating the forest and wildlife policies evolved over time?

 What are the administrative structures envisaged under the Acts and policies?

 What are the problems that the administration faces in managing the forests and wildlife
sanctuaries?

 Judicial Prespective of Forest Administrations, with decided case laws.

 What are the solutions to the same? Which are the best methods of administration?
13. Conclusion:-

There are various sources of environmental laws, which include Constitutional Provisions, laws
enacted by the Parliament and State legislatures, policies formulated by the states and
international obligations towards protecting the environment. There is however, no overarching
law taking account of all the plans relating to the same and due to the conflicts in the same, it is
obvious that the government must take a holistic approach and look environment sustenance as
such. An overarching policy is necessary with enough flexibility for local variations.

With respect to forest laws in particular, the state needs to ensure more involvement of the
citizens and the locals in the area to ensure true conservation of the biodiversity as a whole. The
administrative machinery has not been able to arrest the degradation of forests on its own, and
the cooperation of communities is essential to the survival of the rich biodiversity India boasts
of.

The government has recognised this as can be seen by the various schemes such as the JFMP, but
few states have taken steps towards the implementation of the same. In addition, the Schedule
Tribes (Recognition of Forest Tribes) Bill,also seeks to allow traditional rights and local
participation, but has several flaws and has in fact antagonised the administration against the
beneficiaries. One solution would be to shelve the Bill and instead permit the tribals to continue
with their traditional roles in the forest and at the same time, encourage the growth of village
forests[xcii] and promote a system where all forest dwellers are given some rights to the forest
and in exchange can help manage them.[xciii] In fact legitimising the rights of the users in the
immediate vicinity of the forests would actually motivate subsistence users to participate in
 18

afforestation programmes, thereby even reducing the cost of enforcement.since administration

depends on the cooperation of the locals to a great extent.

This would ensure a holistic approach, which looks at the environment as well as the rights of the
local and the forest dwelling communities. This can look towards preservation and due to the
reduced burden on the administration they can look towards new initiatives to increase the
amount of forest cover and protection of the wildlife. This would lead to a situation where, due to
scientific study, the communities could live in harmony with the forests and wildlife and lead to
a richer and healthier ecosystem.

“THE GREATNESS OF THE NATION CAN BE JUDGED BY THE WAY IT’S ANIMALS
ARE TREATED”--- Mahatma Gandhi

14. Table of Cases:-

 Consumer Education and Research Society v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCALE 606.
 Nagarhole Budakattu Hakku Sthaapana Samiti v. State f Karnataka, AIR 1997 Kar 288.

 Cambridge, CUP, 1999.ty in India: 1200-1991TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of

India, (2002) 10 SCC 606.
 Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India, (1993) Sup (3) SCC 115.
 Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra, 1977(2) SCR 828.
 Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association v. Union of India, AIR 1997 Delhi 267.
 Jesse W. Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Company, 280 U.S. 384
 Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 336.
 Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai, AIR
1986 SC 1205.
 Pappasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 501.
 State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988)4 SCC 655.
 Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0050/1986
 Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 374.
 M.C.Mehta v. Kamalnath (1997) 1 SCC 388.
 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Suppl (1) SCC 504.
 State of Orissa v. Duti Sahu AIR 1997 SC 1040.
 State of Tripura v. Sudhir Kumar Raj Nath AIR 1997 SC 1168.

15. Bibilography:-
 19

Articles:-

 AJT Johnsingh, “Policy Makers and Wildlife”, Hindu Folio on Wildlife, Sept. 6, 1998, p.
10-13.
 Amita Baviskar, “Fate of the Forest: Conservation and Tribal Rights”,29(38) EPW (1994)
2493-2498.
 Anonymous, “Wildlife Mismanagement in India: Mutually Assured Destruction”,
8(12) Down to Earth, (2000), p. 1998-2002.
 Anonymous, “Wildlife Protection and People’s Livelihood”, 34(33) EPW (1999) p. 2305-
2310.
 Ashish Kothari, Saloni Suri, Neena Singh, “Conservation in India: A New Direction”,
30(43) EPW(1995) p. 2755-2769.
 Ashwini Chhatre, “A Summary and Critique of the Draft Forest Bill”, cf. SR Hiremath et
al (Ed.), All About Draft Forest Bill and Forest Lands, Dharwad, Samaj Parivartan
Samudaya, 1996, p. 40-42.
 Chhatrapati Singh, “On Survival: Forestry and the Law”, 5(3) Lokayan Bulletin, (1987),
p. 8-15.
 CP Oberoi, “Wildlife Conservation”, Employment News, August 2000, p. 4, 12.
 D Arora “From State Regulation to People’s Participation: Case of Forests Management
in India”, 29(20) EPW (1994) p. 691-698.
 Gopal Naik, “Joint Forest Management: Factors Influencing Household Participation”, 32
(48) EPW(1997) p. 3084-3091.
 Harry Blair, “Social Forestry: Time to Modify Goals?”, 21(30) EPW (1987) p. 1317-
1322.
 M.K. Ramesh, “Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 An Agenda for Reform”, Prof. OV
Nadimath, Bhat Sarim, Reading Material on Law of Wildlife Protection and Conservation
of Forests, Centre for Environmental Law Education Research and Advocacy, Bangalore.
 Mahesh Rangarajan, “Imperial and India’s Forests: The Early History of Indian Forestry,
1800-1878”, 31(2) The Indian Economic and Social History Review, (1994), 147-165.
 MV Nadkarni, “Forests in the Economy of India”, 7(1) The Indian Journal of Social
Science, (1994), 33-45.
 Nandan Nelivigi, “Biodiversity, Wildlife and Protected Area Management in India: A
People Centred Approach”, 37 (1) JILI (1995), p. 145-181.
 NS Chandrasekharan, KN Chandrashekhara Pillai, “Legal Aspects of Nationalisation of
Trade in Wildlife and Animal Articles”, 16(3) CULR (1985), 485-490.
 Noorjahan Bava, “Environmental Protection and Administration in India: Role of
Government, Parliament and Supreme Court”, 50(1) Indian Journal of Public
Administration, (2004), p. 72-91.
 R Krishna Rao, “Social Costs of Social Forestry”, 23 (50) EPW (1988) p. 2629.
 Ramachandra Guha, “Forestry, Debate and Draft Forest Act: Who Wins, Who Loses?”,
29 (34) EPW(1994), p. 2192-2196.
 Ramchandra Guha, “Forestry in the British and Post-British India, an Historical Analysis-
I”, XVII (44)EPW, (1983), p. 1882-1896. (Part I)
 20

 Ramchandra Guha, “Forestry in the British and Post-British India, an Historical Analysis-
II”, XVII (44)EPW, (1983), p. 1940-1945. (Part II)
 Sanjay Upadhyay, Ashish Kothari, “National Parks and Sanctuaries in India: A Guide to
Legal Provisions”, Kalpavrish, Enviro-Legal Defence Firm, 2000.
 Shashi Kant, “Joint Forest Management: Some Issues and People’s
Participation”, Department of Bio-Sciences, Jammu and Kashmir, CEERA, National Law
School of India University, Bangalore.

Books:
 Armen Rosencranz, Shyam Divan, Martha Noble, Environmental Law and Policy in
India: Cases, Meterials and Statutes, Bombay, NM Tripathi Pvt. Ltd., 1995.
 Bhaskar Vira, Institutional Change in India’s Forest Sector, 1976-1994: Reflections on
State Policy, OCEES Research Paper No. 5, Oxford Centre for the Environment, Ethics
and Society, Oxford, 1995.
 BR Beotra, The Indian Forest Act, Allahabad, Law Book Co., Publishers, 1965.
 Mohan Hirabai Hiralal, Village forest: Gateway to Sustainable and Participatory
Community Forest Management, Chandrapur, Vrikshamitra, 2002.
 Sumit Guha, Environment and Ethnicity in India: 1200-1991, Cambridge, CUP, 1999.
 SR Hiremath (ed.), All About Draft Forest Bill and Forest Lands, Dharwad, Samaj
Parivartan Samudaya, 1996.
 V Desai, Forest Management in India: Issues and Problems, Himalya Publishing House,
Bombay, 1991.

.
 21

Acknowledgement

This project entitled Doctorial study on “Forest and Wild life Protection ” is submitted in
fulfilment of the requirement for the Project work for Corporate laws, DamoDaram Sanjeevaya
National Law University.

This research work is done by M.Anudeep Reddy, VII Semester , .This research work has been
done only for LAW Project purpose only.
The assistance and help during the execution of the project has been fully acknowledged. Very
thankful to Madhavi. M , our teacher, for contributing his efforts in building this wonderful
piece.
 22

Subject:- Environmental Law Submitted by:- M.Anudeep Reddy

Topic:- Indian Forest and Wild Life Administartion Roll no:- 200905, VII SEMESTER

A Critique