
Why Kerala wants Wildlife Act amended to allow it to kill some wild animals
Here is why.
The wildlife attack problem in Kerala
Wildlife attacks have emerged as a major issue in Kerala, with the government identifying 273 village local bodies, out of 941, as hotspots.
The problem animals are mainly tiger, leopard, elephant, bison, wild boar, bonnet macaque and peafowl. Although bonnet macaque (a monkey species) and peafowl do not pose a threat to life, their repeated raids have forced farmers to abandon vast tracts of agricultural land.
As many as 919 persons were killed and 8,967 others injured in wildlife attacks in Kerala from 2016-17 to 2024-25 (till January 31), according to government data.
Major reasons are regional fluctuations in wildlife population, animals forced to move out as the quality of their habitats decline, grazing of domestic cattle in forest areas, changes in cropping patterns, etc.
But importantly, the population explosion in the case of wild pigs and various species of monkeys is wreaking havoc in human habitations.
The existing legal framework puts several constraints in taking timely action in emergency situations, officials said, especially in the case of animals protected under Schedule I of the Act.
Before ordering the killing of dangerous wild animals, the state chief wildlife warden should be convinced that it cannot be captured, tranquilised or shifted to another place. Such captured animals should not be held under confinement. Also, apart from conditions laid down in the Act, the government has to follow the advisory of the Tiger Conservation Authority and Project Elephant Scheme while dealing with human-wildlife conflict.
While the district collector, who is the executive magistrate, can issue orders for removal of a public nuisance, there are court orders preventing the invoking of these powers with regard to wild animals.
The government's stand on killing wild animals
State Forest Minister A K Saseendran said the state wants the Centre to amend the 1972 Act to allow Kerala to kill 'all man-eating wild animals.'
'We are not looking for powers for indiscriminate killing of wild animals. Culling of animals posing threat to life and cultivation should be allowed for a certain period. The permission can be also region-specific and seasonal. All preventive measures such as fencing have failed to stop animal attacks,' he said.
The minister added that in the case of wild boars, the wild boar control system (in which licenced shooters are allowed to kill crop-raiding animals) has failed to effectively curb the menace. 'Before shooting a wild boar, one has to examine whether it is pregnant or not. Such impractical guidelines have failed to serve the purpose. The growing population of wildlife has to be controlled to prevent threats to human lives,'' he added.
Changing the legal status of animals
The state wants wild boars to be declared as vermin for a certain period under section 62 of the Act. The state also wants to address the bonnet macaque threat by removing it from the category of Schedule I. This species of monkey was included in Schedule I in 2022. Until then, the chief wildlife warden could order capturing and relocating of monkeys causing mayhem in human habitations. Now, the warden cannot take any suo motu action on this threat.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Himachal HC quashes Section 163-A of state's Land Revenue Act
Shimla, In a major setback to encroachers on government lands, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday struck down the section 163-A of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1954, allowing regularisation of encroachments on government lands, terming the section as unconstitutional. Himachal HC quashes Section 163-A of state's Land Revenue Act A division bench of the High Court consisting of Justice Vivek Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi ruled that the "Section 163-A of HP Land Revenue Act is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional and as a consequence the section and the rules framed there under the said section are quashed". Putting an end to long litigation, the judgment directed the state government to initiate eviction proceedings expeditiously against all such encroachments that were to be covered under the section 163A, preferably on or before February 28, 2026. The dimensions of the encroachments can be measured from the reply of the government which said that there were approximately 57,549 cases of encroachment covering an area of about 1,23,835 bighas of government land. The encroached government land is about 10,320 hectares and in terms of the rules framed under the impugned provision, 1,67,339 applications were received for regularisation up to August 15, 2002 and taking into account the magnitude of encroachments, the high court directed the state government to consider an amendment in the law pertaining to "criminal trespass". The high court clearly stated that any stay granted against removal of encroachment shall stand vacated and also directed the government to make suitable changes in law by amending the relevant Act and rules appropriately to assign duty on the office bearers of Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Parishad and Nagar Nigam as well as executive officer/commissioner concerned to report the encroachment for taking action to remove of encroachment. The HC also instructed the advocate general to transmit the copy of the judgment to the chief secretary of the sate government and all concerned with immediate compliance. Since 1983, successive governments issued various notifications for regularisation of encroachments and the July 4, 1983 notification permitted regularisation up to five bighas on a nominal fee of ₹50 per bigha. Section 163-A was introduced in 2002 during the first tenure of the then chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal to frame rules for regularising encroachments, with the stated objective of helping small and marginal farmers. However, the High Court on Tuesday ruled that the provision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law and attempted to legitimise illegal acts. "The impugned provision is in fact legislation for a class of dishonest persons and equality cannot be claimed in illegality," the judgment said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.


The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Justice delayed yet again
Last week, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court acquitted all the seven accused, including BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case. Six people were killed and 95 injured in the bombing that had struck the Muslim-majority town in Maharashtra. The case, which was investigated by two different agencies, triggered accusations of 'saffron terror'. All the accused were charged by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) in 2008 of being 'Hindutva extremists'. The trial was controversial as Rohini Salian, the former special public prosecutor, had alleged in 2015 that the government had put pressure on her, through the NIA, to 'go soft' on the accused. The case was initially probed by ATS chief Hemant Karkare, who was gunned down by terrorists during the November 26, 2008, terror attack on Mumbai. Eventually, it was handed over to the NIA. While acquitting the seven accused, the court pointed out several lapses in the investigation and criticised the NIA for presenting 'inconclusive', 'unreliable', and 'legally inadmissible' evidence. It said that there were procedural lapses in the invocation of stringent laws such as the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It added that the investigators had failed to link the motorcycle, allegedly used in the crime, to Ms. Thakur; that there were problems with witness statements; and that there was no proof that Lt Col Prasad Purohit (retired) or the right-wing outfit, Abhinav Bharat, was linked to the blast. In the order, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed, 'The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions. Such discrepancies undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case and fall short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.' While he said that terrorism has no religion, the Special Judge also added that a court cannot convict someone based on mere perception. Civil society members were critical of the verdict given the allegations that it was politically driven; and also since it came on the back of another verdict acquitting all the accused in another blast case. On July 21, the Bombay High Court acquitted all the 12 accused in the 2006 serial bomb blasts case. Seven explosions had ripped through Mumbai's local trains on the evening of July 11, 2006, killing 189 people and seriously injuring 824. The coordinated blasts had scarred the estimated 70 lakh people of Mumbai who use the local trains, often dubbed the city's lifeline, every day. Many victims feared taking the local train again. This case too was riddled with controversies. While the Maharashtra ATS, which had conducted the probe from the beginning, claimed that the attacks were the handiwork of the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Students' Islamic Movement of India, several other investigating agencies, including the NIA, claimed that the Indian Mujahideen had carried out the terror attacks. While acquitting the 12 accused, the High Court laid bare the inconsistencies, loopholes, and lapses in the probe by the Maharashtra ATS. It asked how key witness statements were recorded after an unexplained delay of 100 days. It questioned the trustworthiness and credibility of witnesses, highlighted deep flaws in both the investigation as well as prosecution, and demanded to know why the circumstantial evidence, such as call detail records, which the investigators had relied on so much, was inconclusive. It pointed out that the witness statements were delayed and inconsistent; that there were procedural lapses and coercion allegations about the confessions retrieved; that there was no proof of actual explosives used; and that the chain of custody of the recoveries was broken. The High Court also rapped the trial court for the conviction order. The judgments on two terror cases in India have left the victims, who have had to wait for nearly two decades for verdicts, without a sense of justice. The investigations raise serious questions about India's criminal justice system and specifically about the accountability of investigating agencies. Who are the agencies answerable to, for their contradictory claims and shoddy procedures, which have allowed extremist organisations to get away with such terrible crimes in Maharashtra? And when — if at all they do — will the victims of these blasts get a sense of closure?


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Govt evading questions on citizenship IDs: TMC MP
Kolkata: Trinamool MP Mala Roy on Tuesday accused Centre of hiding behind laws to avoid answering a specific question she had posed in Lok Sabha on identity proofs considered valid citizenship documents in India. To Roy's question on ID proofs, junior home minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar replied on Tuesday: "The Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended in 2004, provides central govt to compulsorily register every citizen of India and issue a national identity card to them. The procedure for the same has been laid down in the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Card) Rules, 2003." Roy said: "I am not at all satisfied with the response from the Union minister. It seems to me that the central govt tried to evade the question. This govt cannot provide a clear answer to any of our questions, and this instance was no exception." The South Kolkata MP added, "Providing a clear answer on citizenship in Parliament could create issues for the SIR. Therefore, the Modi govt still does not have a satisfactory answer regarding proof of citizenship. " You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata