An anniversary often provides an opportunity for stocktaking. The 50th year of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was marked by the Parliament approving critical changes to the legislation. The wild life (protection) amendment bill 2022 is an ‘upgradation’ in that it will aim to implement a dedicated, independent framework to regulate the international trade of listed specimens in adherence to the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to which India is a signatory. There are other — significant — changes. The bill, if it were to become a law, would accord greater importance to safeguarding the rights of the local tribal communities through better management of protected areas and by providing them livelihood opportunities. There is also a provision to ensure better care of seized animals and seized animal parts. The revisions, which reflect ground realities, are undoubtedly necessary and encouraging. Unfortunately, several amendments to the bill have raised concern among conservationists.

Arguably, the most problematic of these is the exception that has been made to allow the transport and transfer of captive elephants for ‘religious or any other purposes’. The vaguely worded clause, it is feared, would add to legal loopholes that can abet the commercialisation and exploitation of the endangered national heritage animal. Temple elephants in India do not always receive the best of care. Moreover, the schedules of protected native wildlife are to be streamlined; their numbers are, in fact, expected to fall. Another concern is the inclusion of a stringent policing framework — penalties have been increased four times for general violations — to reduce man-wildlife conflicts: the consequences of such deterrents are usually borne by marginalised forest-dwelling groups. In a further centralisation of powers, the new wildlife bill also allows the constitution of standing committees that will eventually weaken the authority of state wildlife boards. Equally worrying is the bill’s proposal to give sweeping powers to the Centre in regulating invasive species. The federal character of India’s conservation edifice is unlikely to be consolidated by these elements. These red flags need detailed and consultative deliberations among all stakeholders. Unfortunately, the resolution of these concerns may not materialise given this government’s propensity to push through contentious legislations on the basis of its electoral majority. Other ‘amendments’ — dilution — to ecological checks and balances bear evidence of this transgression.