Question map
With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements : 1. Wild animals are the sole property of the government. 2. When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside. 3. Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2 based on the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA).
- Statement 1 is incorrect: While Section 39 of the WPA states that wild animals are government property, the Supreme Court and high courts have clarified that "wild animals are not the sole property of the government" in a proprietary sense; rather, the state holds them in trust for the public. Legal nuances regarding "sole" ownership often make this statement contentious in a strict legal interpretation.
- Statement 2 is correct: Once an animal is listed in the Schedules of the WPA, it enjoys the same legal protection regardless of its location. Its status does not change whether it is inside a National Park, a Sanctuary, or on private/revenue land.
- Statement 3 is incorrect: Under Section 11, a wild animal can be killed only if it becomes dangerous to human life or is disabled/diseased beyond recovery. Mere "apprehension" or fear is not a sufficient legal ground; there must be an actual threat or specific order from the Chief Wildlife Warden.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis question exposes the gap between 'coaching summaries' and 'Bare Acts'. While standard books cover Schedules and Protected Areas (Statement 2), they often miss the specific legal definitions like Section 39 (Government Property) and Section 11 (Process for hunting dangerous animals). The strategy is to read the 'Definitions' and 'Prohibitions' chapters of major Acts (WPA, EPA, Forest Act) in their original legal language, not just bullet points.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and related Indian laws, are wild animals declared the sole property of the government (state)?
- Statement 2: Under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, do protected wild animals receive equal legal protection whether they are inside designated protected areas or found outside such protected areas?
- Statement 3: Under Indian wildlife protection law (Wildlife Protection Act, 1972), does mere apprehension that a protected wild animal may become a danger to human life constitute sufficient legal ground to lawfully capture or kill that animal?
- Directly states there are no central government acts governing property rights to animals in their natural habitats, except via ownership of land (individual, communal or government).
- Implies wild animals are not declared the sole property of the state by central law.
- Shows the law prohibits private persons from capturing, owning, buying, selling, training or showing wild animals for public exhibition.
- Indicates strong statutory restrictions on private ownership but does not state that wild animals are declared the sole property of the government.
Says 'Forest' including 'Wildlife' was a State subject (Entry 9, List II), indicating legislative/jurisdictional control by state governments over wildlife matters.
A student could use this to infer that control/authority over wildlife is a governmental function and then check statutory language or constitutional entries for explicit property/status provisions.
States are given power under the Act to declare wildlife sanctuaries and national parks, showing state authority to regulate land and wildlife use within territories.
One could extend this to suspect that such regulatory powers include control over wild animals in protected areas and then examine whether 'ownership' is expressly stated in statute or case law.
Lists Act provisions: prohibition of hunting, management of protected areas, licensing for trade and research — demonstrating comprehensive legal regulation of wildlife and wildlife products.
A student might infer strong state regulatory control (restricting private exploitation) and then seek whether regulation equates to vesting ownership rights in the State in the Act or related laws.
Explains that the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau complements state governments, which are called the 'primary enforcers' of the Act — implying enforcement and custodial roles lie with the government.
From enforcement being state-led, a student could hypothesize government custodianship of wildlife and then check legal texts/case law to confirm if that custodianship is framed as ownership.
Notes an amendment withdrew state powers to declare any wild animal a vermin, indicating centralisation of certain powers and that species status (and associated legal consequences) is controlled by statute.
A student could use this pattern (statutory control of species status) to investigate whether the Act similarly assigns proprietary rights over wildlife to the State rather than private parties.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.