Man and animal experience a relationship that defines the scales of nature. The nation lately has observed activities that cause the man counter-part below investigation with acts of brutality upon innocent beings. There have been actions initiated from time to time to guarantee that the human dispute with animals is retained under control but the kindness in implementation of these actions has offered the latter to undergo in addition to environmental inequalities. Henceforth, there occurs a necessity to re-visit the authoritative and legal devices and make significant implementation variations.

The study highlights the juridical viewpoint of the relationship between man and environment which emphasizes the responsibilities seeking to guarantee the security of nature and puts forward some measures taken to ensure the same.

Keywords: relationship, investigation, brutality, kindness, responsibility.

Theory Note:

The relationship between man and the environment has been a member of many profound subjects with its incorporation in the notion of dharma under the Vedas. The therapy of creation as a component of survival and the similar responsibilities of man towards it has been described in these subjects and is suitable in modern times too. It is contemplated a man’s dharma to fight for the security of life and to be understanding of its importance in today’s technology-driven environment.

Lawgiving Mechanism:

The term ‘animals’ has been defined under Section 47 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C), laboring as the primary authoritative measure towards the security of wildlife.

Various laws have been established through the years for securing the protection of wildlife in all kinds. The Elephant Preservation Act, 1879 was enacted by the British Council to check the severity upon elephants for sales and interests. The law criminalized the slaughter of elephants in events other than the act of security, assurance from loss of house, and consequent property, as awarded through the permission allotted under this Act.

The requirement for a complete structure for the security of wildlife was acknowledged by 11 states and consequently the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 was enacted to discuss the matter, under Article 252 of the Indian Constitution. Numerous alterations were made in the initial act through the years to highlight the problems were taken into attention from time to time. The Wildlife Protection Amendment Act, 2002 was the ultimate significant amendment act that included the environmental security aspect of the protection of wild animals, birds, and plants.

‘The National Board of Wildlife’ and ‘The State Board of Wildlife’ are the official high court’s organizations’ in command of framing of orders, rules, and directions to acquire the purpose of wildlife security. The Board conducts the government, including the state authorities to execute rules upon poaching and unauthorized trading of wildlife animals. The supervision of sanctuaries, national parklands, and other protected spaces is also included under the purposes of the National Board of Wildlife.

It cannot be disputed that the legislative devices have served towards the security of wildlife through the years. But, even following almost four decades following the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 evolved into power, a very rare events have been announced before the companies in charge of prosecution provided the regular news-reports of crimes against animals.

Judicial Approach:

The judicial construction of the nation, including the district courts, the high courts and the Supreme Court, has eternally concentrated on the security of wildlife to limit the release of criminals disappear due to inadequate law. To hold animals at standard with the humans and hence holding their rights is a matter which the court was thinking about.

In the case of the State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court put before it was involved above the problem of environmental inequality and the environmental disaster thus producing. Resolute and powerful actions to preserve wildlife were sanctioned by the court.

In the matter of the Center for Environmental Law, the obligation to educate the people about the conservation of wildlife was recognized by the Orissa High Court. The court supported the promise of cultural people in the preservation method to accomplish the same end.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the current range of Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, registered its matter covering the subject of criminal poaching. The stealing and poaching of animals were placed in the light of severe crimes. The decision also considered upon the central and the state authorities to take the required steps against offenders of the Wildlife Protection Act with the advice of their actions.

National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP):

The National Wildlife Action Plan (2017-2031) recognizes the necessity for the security of wildlife past the perceived ‘preserved areas’. The Report of the NWAP describes these preserved areas when it speaks about increasing the preserved area system. Nevertheless, the requirement to add scenes results given the PA network is accessible to the wild natural variety within such scenes, normally, serving as ‘source areas’. Mega vertebrae such as elephants present themselves to the scenery approaching most immediately of their requirement of land and correlated sources for keeping worthwhile communities.

The National Wildlife Control Bureau (NWCB), the frame up of which was a significant lead in the early NWAP, nevertheless, the necessity for growth in its administrative devices cannot be fallen. The Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) attracts awareness towards the offenses employed upon the wild animals which demand fitting data formulation and report period. The organizational plans including an improvement in the field team for repression of offense and constant walking and establishing up security and data units with appropriate digital examination need to be drawn into motion to accomplish the ends.

The Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is informed about in detail in the NWAP-3. It occurs due to the reduction of the natural environment for wild animals which in round prompts them to address human foundations. The last several decades have observed a significant variation of wild animals in a related setting. Asian Elephants (Elephant Maximus) are therefore starting farming fields. Extremely prolific crops contributing to nutrition are a cause of a higher disagreement with the herbivores. It should be brought into concern the HWC is human-induced including the environment and other environmental circumstances.

The alleviation standards should be species-specific and context-specific. The sincerity of risk that an animal may force should be the determining portion for its captivation or discharging into the wild. The animals administered with damages should be sustained in existence care departments with technological assistance. The performance needs establishing up of State Forest Departments (SWDs) to actively discuss the HWCs in situ, particularly where there is the involvement of enormous mammals. The formulation and implementation of educational information programs develop into action when people exhibit hatred against these wild animals as well as to aid in relief.


Security of wildlife and preservation of the environment might have been presented in the nation for long, but to state that animal powers hold attention amongst the additional results would be obverse. From early times, we have endured nature and wildlife on a stand by admiring them in different methods given the cultural experience but our interest concentrates only on the ground facts and not the problems of collapse of the practice as a combination.

The infringement of the prerequisites is observed not only in the individual environment but also in the natural environment of animals. Formulation and codification of legislation about the protection of the atmosphere and security of wildlife cannot be prosperous until severe implementation is drawn into the picture.
The implementation result could only be accomplished if every individual understands his/her responsibility to safeguard the wildlife and therefore commit to creating the atmosphere secure and safe for them. The lack of speech should not provide evaluation of crimes upon innocent creatures.

Author: Nishtha Kheria,
Amity Law School, Amity University Noida 4th Year 7th semester / Student

Leave a Comment