Environment
Summary of the “Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972”
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Summary
1. Introduction:
The Act was enacted in 1972 to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds, and plants and matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto.
2. Authorities and Bodies:
Central Zoo Authority: Established for the recognition of zoos.
Wildlife Advisory Board: Constituted at both Central and State levels to advise on wildlife conservation and related matters.
3. Provisions for Protected Areas:
National Parks: Areas reserved for wildlife, where activities like hunting, grazing, or timber operations are prohibited.
Sanctuaries: Areas where certain activities are regulated, providing protection to wildlife.
Conservation Reserves & Community Reserves: Areas set aside for the conservation of wildlife and its habitat.
4. Protection of Wildlife:
Schedules: The Act classifies wildlife into various schedules based on their protection status, with Schedule I species receiving the highest protection.
Hunting Prohibitions: The Act prohibits the hunting of animals listed in Schedules I, II, III, and IV. Exceptions are made under specific circumstances, like in the case of man-eaters.
Trade and Commerce: The Act regulates and restricts the trade or commerce in wild animals, animal articles, and trophies.
5. Licensing and Penalties:
Licenses: The Act provides provisions for licenses for hunting, taxidermy, and trade in wildlife.
Penalties: Stringent penalties are imposed for offenses like illegal hunting, poaching, or trade in wildlife.
6. Miscellaneous:
Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB): Established to combat organized wildlife crime.
Delegation of Powers: The Act allows the Central and State governments to delegate certain powers to officers or authorities.
7. Amendments:
The Act has undergone several amendments over the years to strengthen wildlife conservation measures, enhance penalties, and address emerging challenges. You can see that in another article that talks about the amendments.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – major amendments and the corresponding additions or changes
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, has undergone several amendments over the years. Here’s a list of the major amendments and the corresponding additions or changes made in those years:
1972:
Enactment of the Act: The original act was enacted in 1972. It provided the basic framework for the protection and conservation of wildlife in India. The act classified wildlife into various schedules based on their protection status and prohibited hunting of animals listed in Schedules I, II, III, and IV.
1982 (Amendment Act 23 of 1982):
Enhanced Penalties: The penalties for offenses under the act were made more stringent.
Trade Regulation: Provisions related to the regulation of trade in wildlife and wildlife products were strengthened.
Addition of New Schedules: New schedules were added to the act to provide for more species under protection.
1986 (Amendment Act 28 of 1986):
Establishment of Authorities: Provisions for the establishment of the Central Zoo Authority and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau were added.
Enhanced Protection: The protection measures for certain species were enhanced, and more species were added to the protected schedules.
1991 (Amendment Act 44 of 1991):
Further Strengthening: The act was further strengthened to enhance the protection of wildlife and their habitats.
Regulation of Zoos: Provisions related to the recognition and regulation of zoos were added.
1993 (Amendment Act 26 of 1993):
Trade Restrictions: The act was amended to further restrict and regulate the trade in wildlife and wildlife products.
Enhanced Penalties: Penalties for violations of the act were further enhanced.
2002 (Amendment Act 16 of 2003):
Introduction of Community Reserves: Provisions for the establishment of community reserves were added.
Enhanced Penalties: The penalties for offenses, especially related to hunting and trade of endangered species, were made even more stringent.
Strengthening of Authorities: The powers and functions of various authorities under the act were further defined and strengthened.
2006 (Amendment Act 39 of 2006):
Tiger Conservation: Provisions related to the conservation of tigers and the establishment of the National Tiger Conservation Authority were added.
Strengthening of WCCB: The powers and functions of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau were further defined and strengthened.
International Relations
Write a note on the conception of the United Nations.
The conception of the United Nations (UN) can be traced back to the aftermath of World War II, a period marked by unprecedented destruction and global upheaval. The horrors of the war, including the Holocaust and the widespread devastation caused by the conflict, spurred the international community to seek a new world order that would prevent such catastrophic events from happening again. This led to the formation of the United Nations, which was officially established on October 24, 1945, with the signing of the UN Charter in San Francisco.
Key factors and events that contributed to the conception of the United Nations include:
1. League of Nations Failure: The League of Nations, established after World War I with the aim of promoting peace and preventing conflicts, had proven ineffective in preventing the outbreak of World War II. Its failure highlighted the need for a more robust and inclusive international organization with the power to enforce its decisions.
2. The Atlantic Charter: In August 1941, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt met on a warship off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, and issued the Atlantic Charter. This document outlined the principles that would guide the post-war world, including the promotion of self-determination, disarmament, and the establishment of a new international organization to maintain peace and security.
3. Dumbarton Oaks Conference: In 1944, representatives from the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C., to draft the initial proposals for the United Nations. These discussions laid the groundwork for the structure and principles of the future organization.
4. Yalta and Potsdam Conferences: At the Yalta Conference in February 1945 and the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, the leaders of the Allied Powers (U.S., UK, and USSR) further refined their plans for the United Nations, including the composition of the Security Council, which was designed to maintain international peace and security.
5. San Francisco Conference: The final step in the conception of the United Nations was the San Francisco Conference, held from April to June 1945. Delegates from 50 countries gathered to review and approve the UN Charter, which established the UN’s structure, goals, and principles. The Charter was signed on June 26, 1945, and officially came into force on October 24, 1945.
The United Nations was created with several key objectives in mind:
• To prevent future conflicts and promote international peace and security.
• To promote cooperation among nations in addressing global challenges, including poverty, disease, and environmental issues.
• To uphold and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
• To provide a forum for nations to discuss and resolve disputes through diplomatic means.
• To facilitate economic and social development on a global scale.
Over the decades, the UN has played a central role in shaping the course of international relations, humanitarian efforts, and development initiatives. While it has faced criticism and challenges along the way, the conception of the United Nations remains a significant milestone in modern history, symbolizing a collective commitment to creating a more just and peaceful world.
Polity
What are main points of the Kesavananda Bharati case?
The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that was delivered on April 24, 1973. The case was heard by a bench of 13 judges, making it the largest bench in the history of the Indian judiciary. The main points of the case are:
Basic structure of the Constitution: The court held that the Constitution of India has a basic structure that cannot be altered by the Parliament through constitutional amendments. The basic structure includes the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the sovereignty of India, democratic and republican form of government, federalism, secularism, separation of powers, and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Amending power of Parliament: The court held that although Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot use that power to destroy or damage the basic structure of the Constitution.
Limitation on the amending power: The court laid down that the amending power of Parliament is not unlimited and is subject to judicial review. The court also held that any constitutional amendment that violates the fundamental rights or the basic structure of the Constitution would be invalid.
Landmark judgment: The Kesavananda Bharati case is considered a landmark judgment as it established the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. The judgment restricted the amending power of Parliament and ensured that the fundamental rights of citizens are protected.
What is the Indira Sawhney case?
The Indira Sawhney case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India. The case was heard by a bench of nine judges and the judgment was delivered on November 16, 1992. The main points of the case are:
Reservation in public employment: The case dealt with the issue of reservation in public employment for the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs). The Mandal Commission had recommended that 27% of the jobs in the public sector be reserved for SEBCs, and the Government of India had implemented this recommendation. However, this policy was challenged in court on the grounds that it violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
Validity of reservation policy: The court held that the reservation policy was valid, but imposed certain conditions and limitations on it. The court held that the total reservation should not exceed 50%, that reservation should not be based solely on economic criteria, and that creamy layer of SEBCs should be excluded from the reservation.
Creamy layer exclusion: The court held that the creamy layer of SEBCs, i.e. the socially and educationally advanced members of the SEBCs, should be excluded from the reservation policy. The court observed that reservation should be targeted towards the truly disadvantaged sections of society, and that the creamy layer did not require any special assistance.
Landmark judgment: The Indira Sawhney case is considered a landmark judgment as it affirmed the principle of affirmative action and the need for redressing historical injustices. The judgment has had a significant impact on Indian society, politics and policy, and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases.
Controversy: The judgment was controversial and has been subject to criticism and debate. It has been argued that the creamy layer exclusion was not enough to prevent the policy from being misused by politically powerful groups, while others have argued that the policy perpetuates the notion of caste-based identity and discrimination.
Which are some of the most important Supreme Court cases?
The Indian Supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgments that have had a significant impact on Indian society, politics, and law. Some of the most important landmark cases are:
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): This case established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, which held that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are inviolable and cannot be amended by the Parliament.
ADM Jabalpur case (1976): This case upheld the power of the government to detain individuals during a state of emergency, even if such detention violated their fundamental rights. The judgment was widely criticized and later overruled.
Maneka Gandhi case (1978): This case expanded the scope of the right to personal liberty and held that such right could not be suspended except in accordance with the law.
Minerva Mills case (1980): This case struck down certain provisions of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) that sought to restrict judicial review and reinforce the power of the Parliament.
Vishakha case (1997): This case laid down guidelines for preventing sexual harassment in the workplace and provided a framework for the protection of women’s rights.
Indira Gandhi case (1975): This case declared the imposition of emergency by the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, as unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.
Golaknath case (1967): This case held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution did not extend to amending the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Olga Tellis case (1985): This case dealt with the issue of the right to livelihood and held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to livelihood.
SR Bommai case (1994): This case dealt with the issue of the dismissal of state governments by the central government and held that such dismissal must be based on constitutionally valid grounds.
Navtej Singh Johar case (2018): This case struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relations, as unconstitutional and a violation of the right to equality and privacy.
What are the main points of the Maneka Gandhi (1978) case judgment?
The Maneka Gandhi case (1978) is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that expanded the scope of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The main points of the case are:
Right to travel abroad: The case was brought by Maneka Gandhi, a journalist whose passport was impounded by the Indian government, preventing her from travelling abroad. The court held that the right to travel abroad was a part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and that any restriction on this right had to be reasonable, fair, and just.
Right to hearing: The court also held that the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing, applied to all government actions affecting the rights of citizens. The court observed that the government could not deprive a person of his or her passport without giving them a chance to be heard.
Expanding the scope of Article 21: The judgment significantly expanded the scope of Article 21, which had previously been interpreted narrowly to include only the right to physical liberty. The court held that the right to life under Article 21 included a range of other rights, such as the right to privacy, dignity, and personal autonomy.
Importance of procedural safeguards: The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in protecting the rights of citizens, and held that any law or executive action that affected the fundamental rights of citizens had to be reasonable, just, and fair.
Landmark judgment: The Maneka Gandhi case is considered a landmark judgment as it expanded the scope of fundamental rights in India and established the principle that the government could not take away the rights of citizens without following due process of law. The judgment has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has had a significant impact on Indian law and society.
What are the main points of the ADM Jabalpur case judgment?
The ADM Jabalpur case (also known as the Habeas Corpus case) is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history. The main points of the case judgment are:
Context: The case was heard in 1976 during the period of Emergency declared in India by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. During this time, civil liberties were curtailed and fundamental rights were suspended.
The question before the court: The main question before the court was whether a person could approach the court for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal order requiring a person to be brought before the court) when they had been detained by the government during the period of Emergency.
Judgment: In a 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that during a period of Emergency, the government could suspend the right to life and personal liberty, and that the court could not entertain writs of habeas corpus challenging such detention.
Dissenting opinion: Justice H.R. Khanna delivered a powerful dissenting opinion, arguing that the right to life and personal liberty could not be suspended, and that the court had a duty to protect fundamental rights even during an Emergency.
Impact: The judgment has been widely criticized for upholding the government’s power to detain citizens without trial and for its lack of concern for civil liberties. It has been overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark Minerva Mills case (1980), which restored the primacy of fundamental rights in India.
Overall, the ADM Jabalpur case is considered a controversial and highly significant case in Indian constitutional law, highlighting the importance of protecting fundamental rights and the limits of government power.
What are the main points of the Shah Bano case judgment?
The Shah Bano case is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history that deals with the issue of maintenance of Muslim women after divorce. The main points of the case judgment are:
Background: Shah Bano was a 62-year-old Muslim woman who had been divorced by her husband in 1978. She filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking maintenance from her husband under the Muslim Personal Law.
Judgment: In a 3-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Shah Bano was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which applies to all religions in India. The court rejected the argument that the Muslim Personal Law, which allows for a limited period of maintenance, should apply in this case.
Controversy: The judgment generated significant controversy, with many Muslim groups arguing that it infringed on their religious rights and that the Supreme Court had overstepped its authority. The government responded by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986, which restricted the right of Muslim women to claim maintenance after divorce.
Impact: The Shah Bano case is significant for its impact on the debate over the relationship between religion and law in India. The judgment established the principle that fundamental rights, including the right to maintenance, could not be restricted on the basis of religion. It also raised questions about the role of the judiciary in interpreting religious laws and sparked a broader debate over the need for a uniform civil code in India.
The Shah Bano case is a landmark judgment that highlights the importance of protecting the rights of women and the limits of religious laws in a secular democracy.
What are the main points of the Vishaka case judgment?
The Vishaka case is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that established guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace. The main points of the case judgment are:
Context: The case was brought in 1997 by a group of social activists who were concerned about the prevalence of sexual harassment of women in the workplace in India.
Judgment: In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace was a violation of the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The court also held that the absence of legislation on this issue necessitated the formulation of guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace.
Guidelines: The court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, including the requirement for employers to develop a sexual harassment policy, establish an internal complaints committee, and provide training to employees on the prevention of sexual harassment.
Impact: The Vishaka case is significant for its impact on the rights of women in the workplace in India. The judgment established the principle that sexual harassment at the workplace was a form of discrimination and emphasized the importance of preventing and addressing such harassment through a legal and institutional framework.
Legislative response: Following the Vishaka judgment, the Indian government passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2013, which provides a statutory framework for preventing and addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.
The Vishaka case is a landmark judgment that highlights the importance of protecting the rights of women in the workplace and establishing guidelines to prevent and address sexual harassment.
What are the main points of the Golaknath case judgment?
The Golaknath case is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history that dealt with the issue of the power of the Indian Parliament to amend the Constitution. The main points of the case judgment are:
Context: The case was heard in 1967 and arose from a challenge to the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, which sought to place limitations on the right of property guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution.
The question before the court: The main question before the court was whether the Parliament had the power to amend the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution, or whether these provisions were beyond the amending power of the Parliament.
Judgment: In a 6-5 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution, as they were part of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore could not be altered.
Impact: The Golaknath case is significant for its impact on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. The judgment established the principle that the Parliament could not alter the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes fundamental rights, through the amendment process. This principle was later affirmed in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973.
The Golaknath case is a landmark judgment that established the principle that the basic structure of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, cannot be amended by the Parliament, and highlighted the importance of protecting the constitutional framework of India.
What are the main points of the Minerva Mills case judgment?
The Minerva Mills case is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history that dealt with the issue of the limits of the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The main points of the case judgment are:
Context: The case was heard in 1980 and arose from a challenge to the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, which sought to expand the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.
The question before the court: The main question before the court was whether the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act was constitutional and whether it violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
Judgment: In a 4-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act was unconstitutional and violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and that the basic structure of the Constitution, including judicial review, separation of powers, and federalism, could not be altered through the amendment process.
Impact: The Minerva Mills case is significant for its impact on the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. The judgment established the principle that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered through the amendment process. This principle was later affirmed in subsequent cases, including the Kesavananda Bharati case.
The Minerva Mills case is a landmark judgment that established the principle that the basic structure of the Constitution, including judicial review, separation of powers, and federalism, is inviolable and cannot be altered through the amendment process, highlighting the importance of preserving the constitutional framework of India.
What are the main points of the Olga Tellis case judgment?
The Olga Tellis case is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history that dealt with the issue of the right to livelihood and the right to housing. The main points of the case judgment are:
Context: The case was heard in 1985 and arose from a challenge to the Bombay Municipal Corporation’s policy of evicting pavement dwellers from the streets of Mumbai.
The question before the court: The main question before the court was whether the policy of evicting pavement dwellers violated their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to livelihood and the right to housing.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the policy of evicting pavement dwellers violated their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the right to life included the right to livelihood and the right to housing. The court held that the state had an obligation to provide adequate housing and livelihood opportunities for all its citizens.
Impact: The Olga Tellis case is significant for its impact on the right to livelihood and the right to housing in India. The judgment established that these rights are fundamental to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the state has an obligation to provide these rights to all its citizens, including pavement dwellers and the homeless. The case also led to the development of the National Housing and Habitat Policy and the Rajiv Awas Yojana, which aimed to provide affordable housing to the poor and the homeless.
The Olga Tellis case is a landmark judgment that recognized the right to livelihood and the right to housing as fundamental to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and highlighted the importance of the state’s obligation to provide these rights to all its citizens, particularly the poor and the homeless.
What are the main points of the SR Bommai case judgment?
The S.R. Bommai case is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history that dealt with the issue of the power of the Governor to dissolve a state government under Article 356 of the Constitution. The main points of the case judgment are:
Context: The case was heard in 1994 and arose from a challenge to the imposition of President’s Rule in the state of Karnataka by the central government.
The question before the court: The main question before the court was whether the power of the Governor to dissolve a state government under Article 356 of the Constitution was absolute, or whether it was subject to judicial review.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the power of the Governor to dissolve a state government under Article 356 was not absolute and that it was subject to judicial review. The court also held that the imposition of President’s Rule in a state was a serious matter and that it should only be done in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state.
Impact: The S.R. Bommai case is significant for its impact on the power of the central government to impose President’s Rule in a state. The judgment established that the power of the Governor to dissolve a state government under Article 356 was subject to judicial review and that the imposition of President’s Rule should only be done in exceptional circumstances. The case also led to the development of guidelines for the exercise of the power under Article 356, which aimed to ensure that the power was used only in exceptional circumstances and not as a political tool.
The S.R. Bommai case is a landmark judgment that established the principle of judicial review over the exercise of the power of the Governor under Article 356 and highlighted the importance of ensuring that the imposition of President’s Rule is done only in exceptional circumstances.
What are the main points of the Aruna Shanbaug case?
The Aruna Shanbaug case is a landmark case in Indian legal history that dealt with the issue of euthanasia and the right to die. The main points of the case judgment are:
Context: The case was heard in 2011 and arose from a petition seeking permission for euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who had been in a vegetative state for over 37 years.
The question before the court: The main question before the court was whether the right to die with dignity was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether passive euthanasia (withdrawing medical treatment to hasten death) should be permitted in certain cases.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that passive euthanasia could be permitted in certain cases with proper safeguards. The court also laid down guidelines for the procedure for seeking permission for passive euthanasia, which required a petition to be filed before the high court with the involvement of medical experts and an independent panel.
Impact: The Aruna Shanbaug case is significant for its impact on the issue of euthanasia and the right to die in India. The judgment established that the right to die with dignity was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and recognized the concept of passive euthanasia. The case also led to the development of the passive euthanasia guidelines, which provide a framework for deciding cases of euthanasia in India.
The Aruna Shanbaug case is a landmark judgment that recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and provided a framework for deciding cases of passive euthanasia in India.
What are the Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act?
The Representation of People’s Act is a significant legislation that governs the conduct of elections in India. Some of the salient features of the Representation of People’s Act are:
Voter eligibility: The Act defines the criteria for voter eligibility, such as citizenship, age, and residency. It also lays down the procedures for voter registration, revision of electoral rolls, and issuance of voter ID cards.
Election process: The Act outlines the procedures for the conduct of elections, such as the filing of nomination papers, the scrutiny of nomination papers, and the withdrawal of candidature. It also regulates campaign activities, such as the use of loudspeakers, processions, and posters.
Election offences: The Act defines various election offences, such as bribery, undue influence, and impersonation, and provides for penalties for such offences. It also regulates the use of money and other resources in election campaigns.
Election expenses: The Act specifies the limits on election expenses that can be incurred by candidates and political parties. It also provides for the maintenance of election expenditure accounts and the filing of expenditure statements.
Electoral disputes: The Act provides for the resolution of electoral disputes through various legal mechanisms, such as the Election Commission, the High Court, and the Supreme Court. It also lays down the procedures for the conduct of election petitions and the time limits for their disposal.
Electoral rolls: The Act provides for the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls, which contain the names of eligible voters in a constituency.
Nomination: The Act prescribes the procedure for filing nomination papers, including the number of proposers and seconders required, and the deposit to be made.
Polling: The Act sets out the rules for conducting polling, including the hours of polling, the use of electronic voting machines, and the appointment of polling agents.
Counting of votes: The Act provides for the procedure for counting votes, including the appointment of counting agents, the verification of votes, and the declaration of results.
Election expenses: The Act regulates the expenses that can be incurred by candidates during an election campaign, and requires them to file expenditure statements after the election.
Disqualification: The Act sets out the grounds for disqualification of candidates, including criminal convictions, corrupt practices, and electoral offences.