Patna High Court Dismisses PIL Against Bihar Govt’s Decision To Empanel Shooters For Shooting Vermin

The Patna High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the State government’s decision to constitute a committee for the empanelment of shooters for the purpose of shooting vermin in Bihar.

The petition had further challenged the letters detailing necessary requirements for such empanelment and the method of evaluation of the shooters to be empanelled. It alleged that even those persons who have been issued with licenses, which do not permit shooting of wild animals, are being empanelled. The petitioner prayed that only proper persons should be empanelled for the purpose of protection of people from vermin. Submissions were also made regarding ensuring the safety of the wild animals, birds, etc. who are threatened with extinction.

State pointed out the objectives behind the enactment of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and submitted that while the 1972 Act imposes a general prohibition on hunting, especially of species facing extinction, the legislators were also conscious of human-animal conflicts in areas where there is predominant human habitation.

It was also submitted that in State of Bihar, nilgai (ghorparas) and wild boar are two animals causing constant interference into the agricultural landscapes thus adversely affecting the farming activities of human beings and their lives. The State said the two animals have been included under Schedule III of the Act of 1972 and the Central Government under Schedule V of the Act has declared them as vermin.

Verdict

At the outset, the bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad was of the opinion that it is for the State to look into the balancing considerations so as to mitigate human-animal conflict and decide on the measures to be taken in accordance with the Act of 1972.

On the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the empanelment of those individuals who do not have valid licenses, the bench observed that the Chief Wildlife Warden, Bihar had issued an order under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1972 delegating his powers under Section 11(1)(b) to Mukhiyas as authorized officers who could obtain services of any expert shooter either authorized by the Forest Department or from a panel prepared by the Forest Department or any other expert shooter available locally who possesses a 22 bore rifle with LG cartridge and who also possesses valid license for the required purpose.

As for the grant of license, the bench observed that under the Arms Rules of 2016, there are already specific provisions for a separate licensing procedure for destruction of wild animals.

“As per the Arms Rules of 2016, Rule 35 provides for licence for destruction of wild animals which do injury to human beings or cattle and damage to crops. The application for such licence under sub-rule (2) has to be in Form IV which also requires the details of the land and cultivation requiring protection and the area in which the arms and ammunition are required to be carried, to be specified. The order issued by the Chief Wildlife Warden also specifies that shooters who have a criminal record or a pending case under the Arms Act should not be empanelled or engaged,” the bench noted.

With respect to the petitioner’s contention that rather than shooting the animals, measures could be taken to relocate them, the bench observed that such an exercise had already been attempted in the year 2021 with the help of veterinarians trained by Wildlife Institute of India.

“However, the exercise failed since the time and resources to carry out such operations for the entire State was found to be not feasible and it resulted in only shifting the problem of depredation of crops, from one place to another,” the bench noted.

The bench also observed that the methods adopted to scare away the animals did not have the desired effect. “Action under Section 11(b) of the Act was justified after finding that such measures of relocation are ineffective in protecting the agricultural operations in dense habitations of human beings,” the bench added.

While noting that the actions of the State Government and the Forest Department are supported by the Act of 1972 and the Arms Act, the bench observed, “...the concerns expressed are duly addressed insofar as the due compliance of the Arms Act and the Rules framed thereunder.”

“We are of the definite opinion that there is no scope for any interference to be caused under the extraordinary jurisdiction exercised by us, in the present public interest litigation. We close the writ petition and leave the parties to suffer their respective costs,” the bench held.

Case Title: Sunil Kumar vs. State of Bihar Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13222 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment