Kerala’s Amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972
Kerala has proposed the Wild Life Protection (Kerala Amendment) Bill 2025, which seeks to shift certain powers from the Union government to the State government, marking a significant shift in environmental governance and federal discourse.
Key Provisions of the Bill
- The State can declare when a Schedule II animal is deemed ‘vermin’, thus allowing for the removal of protections in specific areas and during certain periods.
- The Chief Wildlife Warden is empowered to kill, tranquillise, capture, or relocate any animal that severely injures a person.
These provisions arise from increased violent interactions between humans and wild boars in Kerala, especially in areas where human settlements have expanded into buffer zones traditionally meant for wildlife.
Challenges and Critiques
- The Bill reflects Kerala’s frustration with the Centre’s opaque and often veto-like power to declare vermin, which lacks transparent criteria and timely engagement with States.
- There is a risk of normalizing lethal measures against wildlife due to human encroachment rather than addressing animal behavior.
- Section 62 of the Central Act aims to prevent indiscriminate culling, maintaining conservation efforts.
Federal and Conservation Implications
- Wildlife is a subject on the Concurrent List, meaning any conflicting State law requires Presidential assent.
- Kerala’s amendment challenges whether the State can recreate national conservation safeguards at a local level without diluting them.
For a balanced approach, a defensible settlement should include:
- No dilution of baseline protections and adherence to international commitments.
- State-level procedures that are clear and fast.
- Adoption of non-lethal methods and accountable, data-driven thresholds.
- Incentives that promote coexistence between humans and wildlife.
Conclusion
While the Bill addresses a real urgency, it also bears the responsibility to ensure that rapid decisions do not replace reason and that federal devolution does not equate to federal abdication, risking a cycle of governance failures leading to lethal shortcuts.
