Wildlife Protection Act - The Legal Chamber

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2025 EIA Notification, clarifying that the "General Conditions" under the EIA 2006 Notification do not apply to building and construction projects. Consequently, such projects will continue to be appraised and granted environmental clearance by State-level authorities (SEIAA/SEAC) and not be automatically elevated to the Central level for approval. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The NGT had directed that all building and construction projects falling within 5 km of protected areas, critically polluted areas, or other eco-sensitive zones must be treated as ‘Category A’ projects. This meant they would require environmental clearance from ...

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Sections 49-B and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 for illegal possession of tiger skins and animal parts, affirming the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 57. While noting investigation lapses, the Court reduced the sentence from 6 to 3 years' imprisonment considering the accused's youth and lack of direct poaching evidence, but imposed a Rs. 25,000 fine to deter wildlife crimes. The judgment balanced strict enforcement of wildlife laws with proportional sentencing. Facts Of The Case: The case stemmed from a CBI operation in March 2001 at a Nagpur petrol pump, where appellants Rajesh and Makbool Ahmed were caught with tiger skins, bones, claws, and antler horns in their car. Acting on a tip-off about illegal wildlife trade, t...

Tag: Wildlife Protection Act

Central vs. State Green Authority: Supreme Court Settles the Jurisdiction Debate for Builders

Supreme Court Cuts Jail Time for Tiger Skin Smugglers :Punishment for Animal Parts Smugglers