Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Jerryl Avinash Banait, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging an order dated 9.10.2017 passed by the Chief Wildlife Warden & Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Maharashtra State, Nagpur, under Section 11(1)(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The order permitted the destruction of a tigress (Cub-1 of T-27) while continuing tranquilization efforts, and was to remain valid until 20th October 2017. This was the third order against the tigress; an earlier order of 23.6.2017 had been quashed by the High Court on 29.6.2017, following which the tigress was captured on 27.6.2017 and released into the wild on 29.7.2017. Prior to capture, there were multiple incidents of human-wildlife conflict, including two deaths and two injuries between 18.5.2017 and 23.6.2017. After release, two more deaths occurred on 19.9.2017 and 2.10.2017, and one person was injured on 27.9.2017. A State Level Committee meeting on 14.7.2017 had recommended release with radio-collaring and constant monitoring, noting that the tigress exhibited aggressive adolescent behaviour and deserved one chance, but if she attacked again, the conservation of tigers in the region could be jeopardized. The petitioner argued that the impugned order overlooked the valid release, that the tigress survived on natural prey for about 50 days after release, and that two deaths were insufficient to classify her as a man-eater. He contended that proper procedures were not followed, tranquilization efforts were inadequate, and the order was influenced by an outsider. The respondents defended the order, asserting that the Chief Wildlife Warden’s power under Section 11 is not circumscribed by the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) which are mere suggestions and not directions under Section 38-O(2). They highlighted evidence of nine human-conflict instances, stalking, and feeding on human flesh, and argued that the decision was taken after honest consideration of all relevant material. The court, in its analysis, examined Section 11 and Section 38-O of the Act. It observed that the Chief Wildlife Warden is required to satisfy himself that the animal cannot be captured, tranquilized or translocated before ordering destruction. The SOPs, issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, are not directions under Section 38-O(2) and do not override the statutory power. The guidelines for declaring a big cat a man-eater state that if a tiger waits for humans and eats the body, it is a man-eater, and after a second kill, it can be easily decided. The impugned order considered the locations of deaths, GPS tracking of the tigress, and the absence of other tigers in the area. The court held that the authority considered all relevant material and its subjective satisfaction was not arbitrary. Emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review, the court stated that only the relevance of material can be questioned, not its sufficiency. Finding no case for intervention, the court dismissed the application, thereby upholding the destruction order.
Headnote
A) Wildlife Protection – Destruction of Wild Animal – Section 11(1)(a) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – The Chief Wildlife Warden has the power to permit hunting of a wild animal if satisfied that it cannot be captured, tranquilized or translocated, and such satisfaction is not circumscribed by the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) as they are not directions under Section 38-O(2) but merely guidelines. Held that the decision must be based on relevant material, and the court in judicial review will only examine relevance, not sufficiency. (Paras 5, 13) B) Declaration of Animal as Man-Eater – Guidelines of National Tiger Conservation Authority – Guidelines provide that if a tiger waits for humans and eats the body, it is a man-eater; after a second human kill, it can be easily decided. The authority states that efforts to destroy should not slacken for tranquilization. The impugned order was based on multiple instances of human conflict, deaths, and evidence of stalking and feeding on human flesh, thus the declaration as man-eater was justified. (Paras 6, 13) C) Judicial Review – Scope – The court in judicial review can only examine the relevance of material considered by the authority, not its sufficiency or adequacy. The subjective satisfaction of the authority under Section 11 cannot be interfered with if relevant material was considered. Held that the Chief Wildlife Warden considered all relevant material and the order was not arbitrary. (Paras 7, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 9.10.2017 passed by the Chief Wildlife Warden under Section 11(1)(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 permitting destruction of the tigress (Cub-1 of T-27) is valid, and whether the Standard Operating Procedures issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority circumscribe the statutory power under Section 11.
Final Decision
Civil Application dismissed. Court found that the Chief Wildlife Warden considered all relevant material, the decision was not arbitrary, and the SOPs do not override statutory power. The tigress was declared a man-eater based on evidence and the order was maintained.
Law Points
- Section 11 Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- Section 38-O Wild Life (Protection) Act
- Standard Operating Procedures are not directions under Section 38-O(2)
- judicial review limited to relevance of material not sufficiency
- subjective satisfaction of Chief Wildlife Warden under Section 11 is not circumscribed by SOP
