The LDF government tabled the controversial Wildlife Protection (Kerala Amendment) Bill, 2005, in the Assembly on Thursday. The Bill is unique as it attempts to amend a central law: The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 

The Bill has two main objectives. One, it empowers the Chief Wildlife Warden to order the immediate killing of a Schedule I animal like a tiger, leopard or elephant that is “dangerous to human life”. Two, it reclassifies bonnet macaque (nadan kurangu) from Schedule I, which offers the highest legal protection, of the Wildlife Protection Act, to Schedule II, thereby easing the way for it to be declared as vermin and exterminated.  

The Bill has been devised as a way to manage and mitigate human-wildlife conflict in the high ranges of Kerala. Forest minister A K Saseendran told the Assembly that the Bill was necessitated after the state’s repeated pleas to the Centre for the timely amendment of the Wildlife Protection Act had fallen on deaf ears. The Kerala Assembly, too, had passed a unanimous resolution urging the Centre to amend the 1972 law. 

Forests and wildlife are in the Concurrent List of the Constitution. Meaning both the Centre and states could pass legislation on the subject. However, Article 254 of the Constitution says that if there is a clash between the central and state legislations, the central act will always prevail. 

Emergency shoot at sight orders 
The Opposition UDF said that the provisions of the Wildlife Protection (Kerala Amendment) Act were inconsistent with the 1972 central Act. The UDF members said the Bill would not get even the Governor’s assent, forget the President’s.

In the 1972 Act, it is said that no wild animal in Schedule I can be killed unless the Chief Wildlife Warden is satisfied that such an animal cannot be “captured, tranquilised or translocated”. The Kerala amendment does away with the ‘capture-tranquilise-translocate’ condition, and fast forwards the shooting order.

It has a clause that says that the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) “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 condition for the CWW to issue the order to kill is this: “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 Mother Act states that a Schedule I animal could be hunted (not killed but captured, tranquilised or translocated) if it has “become dangerous to human life”. It does not define what “dangerous to human life” is. 

The Kerala amendment does. “A wild animal becomes ‘dangerous to human life’ when any such wild animal has attacked any person outside a forest or protected area or it is found in a residential area outside the boundary of the forest or protected area”. 

The expression “residential area” is also defined. “It means any geographical area where people reside.”

Genocide of Monkeys
Another inconsistency is the reclassification of the Schedule I Bonnet Macaque (nadan korangu) to Schedule II. Section 62 of the Mother Act says that any wild animal other than those specified in Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II can be declared as vermin for a specified area and time.

The reason why the ‘nadan kurangu’, said to cause serious livelihood and bodily harm to those living along forest fringes, has been reclassified. The Kerala amendment also details how a species could be declared as vermin, like common crows or rats.

“(If) 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,” it says.

UDF dilemma
The UDF is placed in the position of a school boy who has accidentally chased his enemy to the vicinity of the school principal. Fearing the principal, he can neither inflict bodily harm nor even shout at his enemy. In the UDF’s case, in the place of the principal are the voters of the high ranges, the victims of wild animal attacks. 

The UDF has no choice but to support the Bill. They have limited their disapproval to the “dubious political intentions” of the government and legal infirmities. 

“We have the legal competence to bring an amendment to a Act in the Concurrent List,” Opposition Leader Satheesan conceded. “But if we pass an amendment that is inconsistent with the original Central Act, the big question is whether it will stand. There are big differences in procedures, and what we have changed are procedures in the Wildlife Act. Under the Act, there are certain steps to be taken (tranquilise, capture, translocate) before an animal is shot. When the state act is inconsistent with the Central act, it is the central act that would prevail,” he said. 

Like a person who has seen through the ploy, the Opposition Leader said the LDF’s intentions were clear. “This (legislation) will first go to the Governor. It will be there for some time. Then it will go to the President, where it will remain for some time. By then, elections will be declared. So this shoot-at-sight order will remain only on paper,” he said, hinting that it was just a political gimmick to draw high-range voters to the LDF.

Earlier, Congress MLA A P Anil Kumar said that the government had not done anything to mitigate the conflict in the last nine years in office and has now introduced a Bill to create a smokescreen to hide its failures. 

Nonetheless, the UDF leaders said that they supported the Bill. The Bill has been sent to the Assembly Subject Committee.