The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu forest department to submit a report on a public interest litigation that flags insufficient detentions under the Goondas Act for wildlife and forest offences in the state. The Madurai bench issued a notice to the state government and ordered that the report be filed by July 20.
Petition seeks effective implementation of forest offender provision
The petitioner, advocate R Manibharathi, has sought directions for the effective implementation of the 'forest offender' provision under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, to curb forest and wildlife crimes. The plea argues that wildlife offences in southern Tamil Nadu are being committed by organised groups and habitual offenders. It cites illegal tree felling, timber smuggling, poaching, wildlife trade, destruction of elephant corridors, forest fires caused for occupation, and obstruction of forest officials.
Specific cases cited in the affidavit
The affidavit references several incidents, including sea cucumber smuggling in Rameswaram, noting that the endangered species is listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. It also refers to the seizure of elephant tusks from a house at Gangakulam near Sivakasi on May 6, illegal felling of more than 1,200 trees in Mannavanur Beat in Kodaikanal last December, seizure of two elephant tusks weighing 3.9 kg by the Coastal Security Group at Keelakarai on December 7, and seizure of tiger and leopard skins in Dindigul on December 11.
Statistics reveal low detentions
Citing a research paper, the petitioner states that only 26 people were detained as forest offenders between 2009 and 2019, even though thousands were detained under other categories of the Act. He has sought directions to authorities to instruct district collectors, police, and forest officials to invoke the provision against habitual forest offenders.
Background of the forest offender provision
According to the petitioner, 'forest offenders' were brought within the ambit of the preventive detention law through a 1988 amendment, after the state recognised that illicit cutting of trees and killing of wild animals affect the ecological system. He notes that district collectors and other detaining authorities are empowered to invoke the law against those whose activities affect public order. However, it is not being invoked against people repeatedly involved in forest and wildlife offences, he said.
