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
Full viewThis 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.
- Specifies two main objectives: protect endangered species listed in the schedules and provide legal support to designated conservation areas — distinguishing species-level protection from area designation.
- By listing species-protection as a primary objective, it implies legal safeguards for species beyond merely creating protected areas.
- Explains that the Act contains schedules giving varying degrees of protection to species nationwide.
- Explicitly prohibits poaching, smuggling and illegal trade for animals in Schedules I–IV, indicating species-level legal protection that applies irrespective of location.
- Lists prohibition of hunting of wild animals and licensing/regulation provisions — legal measures targeting individual animals and activities, not only area status.
- Also provides for declaration and management of sanctuaries and national parks, showing the Act addresses both species protection and protected-area frameworks.
- Specifies a general prohibition on hunting of wild animals under the Act.
- Identifies that licences to deal with animals are granted only for narrow purposes (education, scientific research, scientific management) rather than for informal apprehensions of danger.
- Notes the 1991 amendment withdrew State Governments' power to declare any wild animal a 'vermin'.
- Removing that power constrains a State from authorising killing/capture by labelling animals vermin on mere local apprehension.
- Explains the Act's schedule system gives varying degrees of legal protection to listed species.
- Affirms that poaching and illegal taking of animals in protected schedules is prohibited, limiting arbitrary killing.
- [THE VERDICT]: Moderate to Difficult. Statement 2 is a 'Sitter' found in all books. Statement 3 is 'Logical Elimination' (Due Process). Statement 1 is the 'Trap'—it sounds extreme ('sole property') but is legally correct under Section 39 of the WPA.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 – specifically the legal status of animals and the administrative powers of the Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW).
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize these WPA specifics: 1) Section 39: Wild animals are State Property. 2) Section 11: Only the CWW can order killing of Schedule I animals if 'dangerous to human life' (not just apprehension). 3) Vermin (Schedule V): Only the Centre can declare this, not States. 4) WCCB is a statutory body under this Act.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: In Indian Law questions, distinguish between 'Procedural Rigour' and 'Subjective Fear'. Statement 3 uses 'Apprehension' (subjective fear)—Indian law never allows lethal force on mere fear; it requires 'Satisfaction of the Authority' (objective order). Use this legal logic to eliminate.
The Act establishes core legal measures such as prohibition of hunting, declaration and management of protected areas, and licensing for research, trade and cultivation related to wildlife.
High-yield for UPSC: questions often ask about the legal framework for conservation, roles and restrictions under the Act, and practical implications (e.g., licences, protected area categories). This concept links to environment governance, biodiversity policy and conservation case studies, and helps answer both static and applied legal/policy questions.
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > the wildlife act, 1972 > p. 13
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 15: Protected Area Network > 15.3. WILDLIFE SANCTUARY (WLS) AND NATIONAL PARK (NP) > p. 213
- INDIA PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, Geography Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 5: Natural Vegetation > WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN INDIA > p. 47
The Act organises species into Schedules I to V where the schedules reflect differing levels of risk and protection.
High-yield: knowing schedule-based gradation is essential for questions on endangered species protection, penalties, and priority conservation measures; it connects to species-specific programmes and legal consequences for offences.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 15: Protected Area Network > r5.r.3. Salient features of the Act: > p. 212
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 16: Conservation Efforts > 16.6. PROJECT SI{OW LEOPARD :t: > p. 240
Wildlife law interacts with constitutional distribution: forests and wildlife have been a State subject, while the Centre has created bodies and amendments that affect enforcement and national coordination.
High-yield: UPSC frequently tests federal aspects of environmental governance — understanding which functions lie with States versus the Centre (and central institutions like WCCB) is crucial for policy, constitutional and administrative questions.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 15: Protected Area Network > 1. The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1982 > p. 211
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 27: Environmental Organizations > 27.4. WTLDLIFE CRTME CONTROL BUREAU (WCCB) > p. 383
The Act classifies species into schedules that determine differing degrees of legal protection across the country.
High-yield for questions on wildlife law: knowing schedule-based protection explains which species receive stricter legal safeguards and underpins issues on poaching, penalties and enforcement. Connects to enforcement agencies and trade regulation topics.
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 11: Schedule Animals of WPA 1972 > 11.1. SCHEDULE LIST-WPA, 1972 > p. 171
- INDIA PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, Geography Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 5: Natural Vegetation > WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN INDIA > p. 47
The Act separately provides for protection of listed species and for declaring protected areas, so legal protection can operate at both levels.
Crucial for answering questions that contrast rights and restrictions inside parks versus legal status of species outside parks; links to questions on habitat protection, community reserves and legal jurisdiction.
- INDIA PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, Geography Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 5: Natural Vegetation > WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN INDIA > p. 47
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 15: Protected Area Network > 15.3. WILDLIFE SANCTUARY (WLS) AND NATIONAL PARK (NP) > p. 213
The Act bans hunting and regulates licences and trade in wild animals, measures that target species irrespective of their presence inside protected areas.
Useful for questions on enforcement, illegal wildlife trade, and penalties; ties into institutional provisions (WCCB, state enforcement) and schedule-based protection, enabling analysis of policy effectiveness.
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > the wildlife act, 1972 > p. 13
- Environment, Shankar IAS Acedemy .(ed 10th) > Chapter 11: Schedule Animals of WPA 1972 > 11.1. SCHEDULE LIST-WPA, 1972 > p. 171
The Act broadly prohibits hunting and only allows licences for defined purposes, so casual apprehension is not an authorised ground for killing or capture.
High-yield for legal/administrative questions: clarifies core operational limits of the Act, links to criminal penalties and licence regimes, and helps answer policy or case-based questions about lawful vs unlawful action against wildlife.
- Environment and Ecology, Majid Hussain (Access publishing 3rd ed.) > Chapter 5: Biodiversity and Legislations > the wildlife act, 1972 > p. 13
The 'Vermin' Trap: While the CWW handles dangerous animals individually (Sec 11), the power to declare an entire species as 'Vermin' (allowing open hunting) lies ONLY with the Central Government (Sec 62), not the State. This is a high-probability future statement.
The 'Due Process' Hack: Look at Statement 3. It suggests 'Apprehension' (fear) is sufficient to kill. In a country governed by Rule of Law, private judgment (fear) cannot replace official sanction. Any statement allowing killing/arrest based on 'mere suspicion' or 'apprehension' without an official order is 99% likely to be False.
Constitutional Law (Polity): Link WPA Section 39 (State Property) to the 42nd Amendment (1976), which moved 'Forests' and 'Protection of Wild Animals' from the State List to the Concurrent List (Entry 17B). This explains why Central laws override State preferences in wildlife conservation.