Kashish Jain
Recently, the Supreme Court granted the Centre time to a PIL filed regarding the non-functioning of the National Board for Wildlife. This Board was constituted under the Wildlife Protection Act of 2014 and is seeking directions to convene their first meeting. The Court is to take up the matter shortly.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is representing the Centre. He has stated that he is receiving instructions and will respond in a few days.
The three-Judge Bench had issued notice to the Centre previously. This was concerning the petition contending that by failing to conduct even a single meeting, the board has been unable to follow the mandate of the Act. The petition also stated that the Board had also failed to uphold DPSP under Article 48 A. The Bench comprised CJI Bobde, Justice Bopanna, and Justice Ramasubramanian.
Advocate Mayuri Raghuvanshi is representing the petitioner and has filed a petition on their behalf. The petition has submitted that the Board was reconstituted after the Supreme Court issued directions in an order, in the case of Chandrabhal Singh v. Union of India.
The petitioner has stated that the Board has not even met once while the Wildlife protection Act provides one year for the meeting to be conducted. The purpose of this is to guide the law and policies about wildlife protection in a manner that productively achieves the goals that the Board set out to achieve.
In the absence of such a committee, the Board has been taken over by the illegally Standing committee without any delegation as mandated by Section 5B(1) of the parent act and without any justification of Legal backing. This is indicative of ad hoc and arbitrary processes being carried out in the highest statutory body that is dedicated to wildlife conservation. This has resulted in a massive lacuna in the efforts made for the conservation and preservation of wildlife. This has resulted in the illegal trade of wildlife and poaching growing to unmanageable extremes.
The petitioner has contended that by not convening even a single time, the Board has failed to follow the act’s mandate and has failed to uphold the Directive Principle of State Policy under Article 48 A.
The Supreme Court has stated time and again that Article 48 A and Article 21 go hand in hand and thus the Board is also in violation of Article 21 in upholding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
