Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE DOTS ■to check and certify for a case to proceed. Thereis a lack of these facilities, and investigatorscomplain of delays in getting reports. It is alsosaid the investigative techniques the forestdepartment uses are outdated and the forensicsupport is inadequate. At present, there is aheavy dependence on the Wildlife Institute ofIndia’s forensic laboratory, whereas the regionalforensic labs used to detect and investigate othercrimes have not been put to use.v. The Act does not allow for the level of the crime.The CBI suggests that there should be a differencebetween large volume traffickers and small timepoachers, which at present the Act does notprovide for.vi. The CBI also suggests that no sentence passed bythe courts should be suspended, remitted orcommuted to avoid recurrence or disappearanceof criminals, as has happened in the case ofSansar Chand’s appeal against conviction.vii. At another level, there has been little review onhow relevant departments and agencies aretrained on wildlife crimes. In addition, there is aneed for regular training of prosecuting lawyers,and the judiciary, on aspects of wildlife crime.Although some NGOs in India do carry outtraining for departmental officials as well as thejudiciary, there is no extensive or consistentprogramme for in-job training for the judiciary orthe forest officials posted at locations where suchcrimes are high.viii. The wildlife officials also complain of lack oflegal support during the prosecution process,with government prosecutors being overworkedand unavailable for their cases. There is clearly aneed for special attention to ensure that the casesget good legal representation.Amending criminal provisionsBased on the above submissions, the Task Force hasconsulted legal experts to detail out what is neededto ensure that law is both a deterrent to poachers andis effective is bringing the guilty to book. Withoutthis legal reform, combating trade will be difficult.The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 containsdetailed provisions for the prevention and detection ofoffences (see Annexure XI: Amending the criminalprovisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972). Someof these provisions have been amended in 1991 (by Act6 of 1991) and 2003 (Act 16 of 2003). The purpose ofthese sections is both preventive and deterrent. It isgenerally agreed that these provisions, contained inChapter VI of the Act, have not been used and generallyprove to be ineffective. The lack of prosecution and theinability to secure convictions are writ large over theskeletal data available — and perforce, unavailable.Occasionally, these provisions achieve publicnotoriety when famous people are prosecuted. But thelaws must apply to all and the protective regime mustbe enforced without fear or favour.The Act must be understood in terms ofa. The offences it discouragesb. The special procedure in investigationc. The method and forum of triald. Special provisions in relation to thecognisance of offences, the compounding ofoffences, presumptions as a matter ofevidence and offences by companiesIn these terms, the Act seeks to be comprehensive.But there exist lacunae in implementation thatundercuts the legal reach of the Act. Thus, in order tostrengthen the Act’s criminal provisions, cases needto be treated as serious criminal cases. The first stepmust be to differentiate between serious and nonseriouscases and ensure that serious cases are triedas police cases by the Sessions Courts.This has an impact on the manner in which thecases are prosecuted. Currently, since they arecomplaint cases, the police do not prosecute them. Itis left to the overworked forest officials to come tocourt and build the case before it can be takenfurther. The cases linger on because they areprescribed as ‘lesser’ cases and are not treated aspriority. The prosecutors, mainly forest officials, areinept and lose interest. The second step, therefore,must be to have special prosecutors.Since these cases randomly languish in courtsthroughout the country, they are not monitored by awildlife crime bureau either at the state or the Unionlevel. So, the third step must be to create a wildlifecrime bureau for all cases — especially the seriousones.Ineffective protectionThe numerous reasons for the ineffective provisionsof the Act are as follows:1. The Act makes no distinction between seriousand special offences, thereby depriving theprevention, detection and deterrent strategy ofany strategic capability. The offences relating toendangered species should be placed at a higherlevel than those that relate to other animals. Thusoffences relating to tigers, blackbucks, elephants,rhinoceros, etc need to be treated as special bynot only giving them priority for the purposes ofinvestigation, but also by increasing the penaltyfor attempting an offence against these animals.Similarly, there is an absence of a specialinvestigation team whose brief would be totackle offences relating to serious or specialcases. A similar classification as is made for theThe way ahead 59
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FORCE REPORToffences in the Code needs to be imported intothe Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 to clarify theprocedure to be followed for different offences.2. The investigation is left to a number of officers,trained and untrained — those trained in forestryare not trained in investigation and vice versa.This leads to an unfortunate situation whereeven though the investigation is carried outproperly, no evidence is available; or, when theevidence available through the process ofinvestigation is found to be flawed, and henceprosecution becomes pointless.3. The trial in all cases proceeds as a complaint caseto be tried as a warrant case, except whencomplaints are on the basis of a police report.This results in prosecutions primarily being inthe hands of forest and environment officialsthrough a long drawn process. Similarly, there isa lack of trained special prosecutors for offencesdealing with wildlife. Clearly, in serious andspecial cases, the offences should be tried as if onthe basis of a police report by the Sessions Court,and where available, the case should beprosecuted by special prosecutors.4. Special provisions are needed so that forensicand expert evidence is readily available tothe court. Provisions are required for moreexperts and laboratories. More often than not,prosecution is delayed because the prosecutionis unable to determine whether the part of theanimal recovered is one of an endangeredspecies. Identification becomes difficult withrespect to hides and skins and thus experts arenecessary to testify to whether the animal inquestion is a tiger or a leopard.Proposals to strengthen criminal provisionsOne of the key ingredients of the enforcement policyis a speedy trial process with effective investigationwhich will lead to appropriate punishment of theconvicted. Presently, the ingredients are lacking. Thefollowing are the proposals that can ensure astrengthening of the criminal process:1. A schedule needs to be created to distinguishbetween special and serious offences.2. Serious offences should be tried directly by theSessions Court and should be punishable for amandatory term of at least seven years. Thereport filed by the investigating officer, whetherhe be a forest official or a police officer, shouldbe treated as the police report. A table in thenature of the Schedule in the Code of CriminalProcedure should be added, to which additionsand modifications may be made.3. The serious offences are● Non-bailable● Cognisable● Not compoundable● Should be tried by special prosecutors4. It would be necessary to continue the range ofofficers who can investigate offences under theAct with powers of entry, seizure, arrest anddetention. But to ensure a streamlining of theinvestigation capabilities of both the forest andthe police wings, proper training ought to begiven.5. Similarly, provisions should be made for specialinvestigation teams to look into serious or specialoffences.6. Special courts should be designated by the stategovernments in consultation with the Uniongovernment among the existing hierarchy ofcourts to ensure that the offences under theWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 are prosecuted,and penalties imposed as expeditiously aspossible.7. With respect to the prevailing provisions, thebail provisions [Section 51A] should becontinued and an offence of conspiracyspecifically added. Similarly, the cognisanceprovisions need to be re-examined and reposedin the state or the Union government.8. The wildlife crime bureau must be made into astatutory body to monitor, oversee and prepareperiodic reports. It must have the power to makerecommendations and proposals for the purposeof strengthening the wildlife protection system.The bureau shall be in addition to the CentralZoo Authority. A similar amendment, wherebyprovisions are added as Chapter VI-B, is necessaryto create such a body.Setting up a wildlife crime bureauThe bureau is urgently needed. But the issue isto structure it so that it is effective in combatingcrime. In its deliberations to review the proposalfor the national crime bureau submitted by theUnion ministry of environment and forests, theTask Force has consulted a number of experts —from people experienced in dealing with parallelcrime busting institutions like the narcoticsbureau, to those experienced in wildlife crime at thestate level.The bureau proposed by the ministry will be:● Headed by additional director general of forests(wildlife), who will be assisted by the inspectorgeneral of forests● Headquartered in Delhi and have regional officesat Jabalpur, Mumbai, Chennai, Cochin, Kolkata,Delhi, Guwahati, Imphal and Amritsar.● Have officers posted in the bureau on deputationfrom different agencies like forests, customs andothers.60 The way ahead
Page 2 and 3:
THE REPORT OF THE TIGER TASK FORCEJ
Page 4 and 5:
ContentsIntroductionExecutive summa
Page 6 and 7:
IntroductionThe Tiger Task Force wa
Page 8 and 9:
TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 10 and 11:
Page 13:
■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 16:
Page 21 and 22: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 33: ■ JOINING THE DOTS TIGER TASK FOR
Page 44 and 45: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 52: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 78: TIGER TASK FORCE REPORT JOINING THE
Page 91 and 92: Wildlife research has been facing s
Page 122:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
04Action plan for changeKey recomme
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
05References
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217:
show all

Report of the Tiger Task Force - PRS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?