Why in News :Kerala has introduced the Wildlife (Protection) Kerala Amendment Bill, 2025, seeking powers to declare animals like the wild boar as vermin and manage human–wildlife conflict locally, raising concerns over federal balance and dilution of national conservation safeguards.
Introduction
- Kerala has proposed the Wildlife (Protection) Kerala Amendment Bill, 2025, marking a shift in the federal debate on environmental governance.
- It seeks to devolve powers from the Union to the State regarding management of certain wildlife species.
Context
- The Bill allows the State government to declare a Schedule II animal as “vermin” for specific areas and periods.
- It empowers the Chief Wildlife Warden to kill, capture, or relocate animals that injure humans.
- The step follows repeated human–wild boar conflicts and Centre’s refusal to notify wild boar as vermin under Section 62 of the Central Act.
Legal Framework
- The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is a Central law; Section 62 gives the Centre power to declare vermin.
- Wildlife lies in the Concurrent List, so any State amendment repugnant to the Central Act needs Presidential assent (Article 254 (2)).
Key Concerns
- May weaken national conservation safeguards and enable indiscriminate culling.
- Non-lethal options and ecological causes of conflict remain unaddressed.
- Risks breaching international obligations (CITES, CBD).
- Reflects Centre–State friction and fragmented environmental federalism.
Way Forward
- Maintain national conservation baselines while allowing State-specific flexibility.
- Create transparent, scientific criteria for declaring vermin.
- Strengthen non-lethal conflict-mitigation and compensation systems.
- Institutionalise cooperative federal mechanisms for wildlife governance.
Conclusion
Federal devolution must not erode ecological prudence. Kerala’s move signals genuine distress but must balance autonomy with accountability to preserve India’s conservation ethos.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper III – Environment: Wildlife conservation, environmental governance, human–wildlife conflict, and biodiversity protection.
Mains Practice Question
Q. Kerala’s proposed amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 highlights the growing tension between ecological prudence and federal autonomy. Discuss the constitutional, ecological, and governance implications of such decentralisation in wildlife management.
