SC refuses to stay Centre’s notification declaring nilgais, monkeys as vermin

A Bench, headed by Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, however, said the matter would be taken up on July 15. The Apex Court has asked the animal rights organisations to make representations before the Centre regarding three notifications, declaring nilgais, monkeys and wild boars as vermins, with the Animal Welfare Board of India terming it as an “arbitrary” decision.

The board, which is a statutory advisory body on animal welfare laws and promotes animal welfare in India, questioned the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, declaring these animals as vermins for one year in the states of Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

“The arbitrariness is there. We have seen the video. There has to be a basis. How can the Ministry do this? There has to be compassion towards animals,” the lawyer, appearing for the board, told a Vacation Bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and AM Khanwilkar.

However, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar said the board has not challenged these notifications.

The Bench, which refused to issue notice on the petitions, asked the Centre to consider the representations within two weeks and take appropriate steps as required. During the hearing, the Bench posed several queries to the petitioners on whether these notifications specifically talk about forest areas.

“Prohibition (on hunting) will apply to forest area or animal habitat and not outside that. Absolute prohibition applies to animal habitat only. You cannot hunt them in their home. Suppose they are found outside their habitat, then how to deal with it,” the Bench asked.

Responding to the query, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for one of the petitioners, referred to killing of nilgais in Bihar and said, “There are scientific ways to deal with such situations. Wild animals cannot be killed like this.” 

The first notification issued by the Ministry dated December 1, 2015, had declared nilgai and wild boar as vermin in some districts of Bihar for one year.

The second notification dated February 3 this year declared wild boar as vermin in some districts of Uttarakhand for a period of one year, while the third notification, issued on May 24, declared rhesus macaque (monkey) to be vermin in some districts of Himachal Pradesh. Luthra told the Bench that the wildlife department was competent to tackle such issues.

“They (wildlife department) can come and capture the animals and if the animal has become a man-eater, then it can be killed,” he said.

During the hearing, the Bench asked, “Have you made any representation before the Central government?” “Further notification or corrigendum to a notification has to be issued by Central government,” the Bench said, adding, “The authority is with the Central government to issue a notification. You make a representation and we expect that the Central government will take action whatever is required. The main petition can be kept pending.” 

Senior advocate Anand Grover, who appeared for another petitioner, said the Centre had asked the state governments to give them information about conflicts between animals and humans. He claimed that Bihar and Himachal Pradesh had neither submitted any report to the Centre, nor had they conducted any such study, despite the fact that people had complained about it.

Referring to the Bihar incident, Grover said men from Mumbai were hired to kill animals and they were “shooters”. To this, the Bench said, “this statement is questionable.” Grover, however, said, “I am not casting aspersions. They were shooting the animals at random.”  He added the conflicts between humans and animals were outside the forest area.

One of the counsels, representing another petitioner, told the Bench that the intent of Parliament was to reduce the number of vermins. “A scientific study has to be there. One state admittedly say it has not conducted the study. All material is with the Central government but still they issued such notification,” he said.

The Solicitor General, however, questioned the maintainability of these petitions and said that the Apex Court was not the appropriate forum.