Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Patna High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the Bihar government's decision to appoint shooters for shooting vermin.

The PIL was filed challenging the state government's plan to form a committee to choose shooters to shoot vermin throughout Bihar.

The division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad noted, "it is the duty of the state to look into the balancing considerations so as to mitigate human-animal conflict and decide on the measures to be taken which also has to be in accordance with the Act of 1972".

The petition also questioned the letters outlining the essential qualifications for such empanelment as well as the manner of evaluating the shooters to be empanelled. Further, it was claimed that even people who had been awarded licences that prohibited the hunting of wild animals were being empanelled.

The petitioner requested that, for the purpose of protecting people from vermin, only qualified individuals be enlisted. Wild animals, birds, etc. who are threatened with extinction were also the subject of submissions.

State highlighted the reasons for the enactment of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and argued that while the 1972 Act imposes a general prohibition on hunting, particularly of species threatened with extinction, the legislators were also mindful of human-animal conflicts in areas where human habitation is predominate.

It was also argued that in the state of Bihar, nilgai (ghorparas) and wild boar are two animals that constantly interfere with agricultural landscapes, negatively impacting human farming activities and lives. The State claimed that the two animals have been included in Schedule III of the Act of 1972, and the Central Government declared them to be vermin under Schedule V of the Act.

Further, the petitioner also contended that rather than shooting the animals, the state should take some measures to relocate them.

The bench while dealing with the PIL observed that the Chief Wildlife Warden of Bihar had issued an order under Section 5(2) of the 1972 Act delegating his powers under Section 11(1)(b) to Mukhiyas as authorised officers who could obtain the services of any expert shooter authorised by the Forest Department or from a panel prepared by the Forest Department or any other expert shooter.

Further, the court said, “The court noted that the Arms Rules of 2016 already contain specific provisions for a separate licencing procedure for the destruction of wild animals.”

In addition, the court noted that the methods used to frighten away the animals were ineffective. The bench added, "Action under Section 11(b) of the Act was justified after finding that such relocation measures are ineffective in protecting agricultural operations in dense human habitations."

"We are unequivocal of the opinion that there is no room for interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction exercised by this court in the present case of public interest." the court ruled.

Accordingly, the bench disposed of the writ petition.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar vs. State of Bihar 

Statute: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972