Policies and People | Is the wildlife act criminalising forest communities?

The Wild Life Protection Act of 1972 is 50 years old, and changes are in the offing. A new working paper evaluating the law's impact says it has criminalised the lives and livelihoods of Dalits, Adivasis, Bahujan, and Vimukta communities. The final report will be out in November.

Forests in India have always been contested places, and the relationship between forest officials (in charge of "conserving" forests) and local communities (who are dependent on jungles for their lives and livelihoods) is often strained and uneasy.

The CPA team studied 1,414 forest offences from 2016-20 (from registers maintained by the forest department), 780 arrests from 2011-2020, and 129 FIRs from 2016-2020. (Satyabrata Tripathy/HT Photo/Representative Image)

One of the primary laws that govern this asymmetrical relationship between forest department officials and forest dwellers is the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (WLPA), which protects India's diverse natural heritage.

However, the WLPA, since its enactment, promoted "fortress conservation" that creates a separation of forest spaces without human habitation, thereby putting pressure on forest-dwelling communities to resettle in spaces outside forests.

And, often this act has been used by forest authorities to harass pastoral communities and forest dwellers across India, who are often dirt poor, illiterate and have no means to access proper and effective legal resources to defend themselves.

New working paper

Earlier this week, I came across a new working paper that evaluates how much wildlife policing, using the provisions of WLPA, is criminalising the lives and livelihoods of Dalits, Adivasis, Bahujan, and Vimukta communities. The final report will be out in November.

The research is done by the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (CPA Project), a grassroots litigation-research-based initiative based in Bhopal. The CPA researchers have three questions: Who is criminalised by the WLPA? What kind of activities are prohibited by the law? And the impact of such criminalisation on forest-dependent underprivileged communities in Madhya Pradesh (MP)?

There are two reasons why the CPA team focused on MP: First, it is the second-largest state in India with regards to forested areas and has some of the largest protected areas in the country, and second, it has the highest tribal population in the country, ie over one in five people belong to a Scheduled Tribes community.

The CPA team studied 1,414 forest offences from 2016-20 (from registers maintained by the forest department), 780 arrests from 2011-2020, and 129 FIRs from 2016-2020.

To supplement their quantitative findings, a qualitative study documenting the experiences of criminalisation faced by communities from the villages in the districts of Balaghat and Mandla adjoining the Kanha National Park (the oldest Protected Area in MP also accounting for the highest number of offences in a Protected Area) was also done.

Key findings

#Almost one-third of arrested people between 2011-2020 belong to the oppressed caste communities, which include Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Denotified Tribes (DNT) and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

#Police have filed almost three-quarters of FIRs for hunting based on 'Mukhbir Soochna' (information received from informants) during 2016-2020.

#A careful look at the FIRs also revealed one-fourth of arrest records under WLPA do not provide caste details or last names of arrested persons.

#Hunting-related offences continue to be a significant concern, preventing forest-dwelling communities from accessing forest-dependent livelihoods, a right under Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006.

#Seven out of 10 people accused of hunting/poaching from 2016-2020 belong to oppressed caste communities, with STs making up more than half of the charged population.

#An accused person under WLPA can spend up to three years in prison and a fine of up to ₹25,000. While the forest department has registered almost five WLPA cases per week in five years (2016-2020), nearly 95% of those remain undecided/ pending, burdening the most marginalised and draining them of their resources due to legal costs.

Untrammelled powers

"This scheme of prosecution, read with the untrammelled powers of investigation accorded to the forest department, has resulted in the prolonged and frequent criminalisation of forest-dwelling communities. Other procedural aspects relating to burden of proof, compounding of minor cases, independence of investigation is further examined in the report," says Nikita Sonavane, co-founder of the CPA Project.

“This report is a valuable addition to the earlier studies that have shown us that law disproportionately impacts the adversely vulnerable population. You enter the system, and there is no easy exit; if you manage to exit it, then you are not at the same place when you entered, but you are far more disadvantaged," says Justice S Muralidhar, Chief Justice, Orissa High Court.

Since December 2021, Parliament has sought to amend the WLPA to introduce newer animal species as protected, redefine categories of crime to exclude certain good faith practices that may impact wildlife (such as for research or education purposes) and increase the scope of punishment.

The report is a timely reminder that before the new law is put in motion, a proper ground-level countrywide assessment of the earlier one needs to be done so that the same mistakes are not repeated.

The views expressed are personal