Kerala’s Wildlife Amnesty Proposal Sparks Bias Concerns
Relevance:
Class 10 Civics: Equality before law, justice, governance.
Class 11 Political Science: Rights, state accountability, legal obligations.
Class 12 Political Science/Legal Studies: Law enforcement, wildlife protection, public trust in institutions.
Class 10 Civics: Equality before law, justice, governance.
Class 11 Political Science: Rights, state accountability, legal obligations.
Class 12 Political Science/Legal Studies: Law enforcement, wildlife protection, public trust in institutions.
Legal Studies
Highlights Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, unequal legal treatment, and issues like evidence handling.
Highlights Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, unequal legal treatment, and issues like evidence handling.
Sociology
Reveals how power and status affect justice; shows social inequality and public perception.
Reveals how power and status affect justice; shows social inequality and public perception.
History & Geography
Links to environmental laws, wildlife conservation, and governance in modern India.
Links to environmental laws, wildlife conservation, and governance in modern India.
1. What is the Proposal?
Kerala Forest Department wants one-time amnesty for declaring wildlife trophies.
Proposal sent to Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Aimed at legal heirs who inherited wildlife trophies but missed declaring them in time.
2. Law on Wildlife Trophies
Section 40 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Must declare animal articles/trophies of Schedule I species within 30 days.
Penalty: 3–7 years in jail + minimum ₹25,000 fine for illegal possession.
3. Officials’ Justification
Amnesty only for those with valid ownership certificates.
Some heirs didn’t declare due to lack of awareness or delay.
The final decision rests with the Union Government.
4. Controversy Over Unequal Treatment
Critics say Forest Dept. treated cases unequally:
Actor Mohanlal: Found with ivory on mirror stand; case handled leniently.
Rapper Vedan: Wore leopard tooth pendant; arrested quickly after ganja case.
5. Case Details
Both cases registered at Malayattoor Forest Range, court: Perumbavoor.
Mohanlal’s ivory was not taken to State Treasury—raised fear of evidence tampering.
Vedan claimed the pendant was a gift and didn’t know it was illegal.
6. Public Reaction and Criticism
Former Forest Force Head Gopinath Vallilil criticized unequal action.
Said elephant tusk cases are clearer, while tooth cases may confuse people.
Raised concern over two other actors, including a Union Minister, using similar items.
7. Demand for Fairness
Biased action damages public trust and weakens the rule of law.
Calls for equal treatment in all wildlife crime cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment