TIA NEWS/  New Delhi:

sc

The Supreme Court today refused to put on hold notifications permitting the culling of Nilgais, Wild Boars and Rhesus Monkeys in Bihar, Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh. The Apex Court asked the PIL petitioners – animal rights activist and two organisations – to represent to the Central government to point out flaws in the three notifications.

An apex court vacation bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice A.M Khanwilkar asked the government to consider and respond to the representations in two weeks time from the date of the receipt of the representation and directed the listing of three petitions on July 15.

While asking the petitioners to make representation to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the bench in its order said that none of the three animals would be culled in forest areas.

The court refused to issue notice to the Centre and others on the three petitions. “We are not inclined to issue notice”, Justice Goel said as senior counsel Vijay Hansaria urged the vacation bench to issue notice.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests by three notifications issued on December 1, 2015, February 3, 2016 and May 24, 2016 had declared nilgai and wild boar as vermin in some districts of Bihar, wild boar as vermin in Uttrakhand and Rhesus Macaque (Rhesus monkeys) as vermin in Himachal Pradesh for one year.

Hansaria’s plea that the Centre should be restrained from issuing another two notifications which were in pipeline too did not find favour with the bench. \

“If they have the powers they can issue notifications, the correctness of the exercise of that power would be tested by us”, Justice Khanwilkar observed.

PIL petitioners – Animal rights activist Gauri Maulekhi, Wildlife Rescue and Research Organisation and Federation of Indian Animals Protection Organisations – have challenged three notifications issued by the government by which Nilgais and Wild Boars can be culled in some districts of Bihar and Uttarakhand and Rhesus Monkeys in Himachal Pradesh.

By the three notifications issued since December 2015, the three wild animals were declared as vermin and permitted to be culled for one year.

The PIL petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of section 62 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, under which three notifications were issued

The Animal Welfare Board of India also told the court that the notifications were flawed.

At the outset of the hearing, senior counsel Sidharth Luthra referred to the Section 11(1)(b) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 pointing out that the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer could order the hunting of a wild animal who had become dangerous to human life or to property including standing crops on any land.

A wild animal could also be ordered to be killed if it becomes disabled or diseased and is beyond recovery.

However, the bench observed that the law prohibited the hunting the wild animals in their habitat only and not when they are found outside their habitat.

As bench observed that vermin was a different category, Luthra said that wild animals could not be categorised of vermin for hunting and killing them. He said that for culling wild animals there has to be a scientific study and a rationale.

The bench was told that Uttrakhand has admitted that they have not undertaken any study prior to asking the Centre to issue the notification. “Uttrakhand has categorically say that that they have not studies the matter”, Luthra told the bench.

He said that there was no basis for the issuance of three notification and their “arbitrariness is there for all to see”.

Another senior counsel Anand Grover told the bench that “they already have hired people from Bombay. They are sharp-shooters. They are shooting them randomly.”

Justice Khanwilkar singled out the word “sharp-shooter” as it has different connotation in another context.

Opposing the plea by three petitioners, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the court that Bihar notification was issued in December 2015 and it was already seven months down the line and its total duration was one year only.