Tags:
Journalism of Courage
DECEMBER 18: Even familiarity with the judicial system fails to generate the contempt that these figures merit: In the entire history of tiger conservation, there have been only two convictions. One was awarded just last year in Calcutta, when a trader was sentenced to four years RI for poaching tigers in the Sunderbans. The other case is that of the legendary Sansar Chand, known as the Veerappan of the North8217;, who was sentenced in 1982 to only one and a half years. He was released after six months on the ground that he was only 16 when he was caught. He was arrested subsequently in connection with different cases, but was never convicted.
Ironically, there have been thousands of seizures and a slew of cases filed all over the country. The only people to be convicted are tribals and locals caught for petty crimes. The big traders always have the last laugh. The message that the judiciary is putting across reads: A court case is a minor impediment to the illegal trade in wildlife goods.
A conviction rateclose to 0 per cent in tiger poaching is particularly shocking, considering the steadily falling tiger population. But the conviction rate is only marginally higher in cases involving birds or the trade in the skins and bones of other Schedule I animals.
On the other hand, triumphal pictures of wildlife inspectors posing with seized goods are a dime a dozen. The celebrations are ill-timed because in most cases, the trader is out on bail the very next day, thanks to premium legal advice. After years in the courts, the case is weakened with the witnesses usually government officials being transferred, retiring or passing away.
Never mind convictions, chargesheets are just as hard to come by. In the case of the State versus Rajendra Kumar, where the accused was caught with 46 shahtoosh shawls in May 1998, the chargesheet is yet to be filed. Neither has it been filed in the case of the State versus Naresh Narula, from whom 96 shahtoosh shawls were seized in March 1999.
Delhi has had a long history ofwildlife seizures and was considered to be a key transit point between India, the Far East and Europe. According to the wildlife department, until 1996, nearly 60 per cent of the trade was concentrated in Delhi. Some of the world8217;s biggest seizures have taken place here 8212; the Sansar Chand and Pema Thinley case in 1993, in which goods worth Rs 5 crore were seized. It8217;s a bit paradoxical so many seizures in the heart of the concrete jungle.
8220;Here the stress is on pollution. Wildlife is a low priority among the people in the department of environment, forests and wildlife,8221; says Sudhir Mishra, an advocate at the High Court. The capital did not have a Chief Wildlife Warden for a number of months. Wildlife cases are heard only in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. A separate wildlife court to ensure speedy trials has been mooted often, but nothing has come of it. In fact, wildlife crime is not a priority elsewhere in the country either. 8220;Our resources are not on par with those ofother departments,8221; says Surender Kumar, Deputy Director, Wildlife, Northern Region.
To negate the chances of corruption and collusion with the Wildlife Department, there have been attempts to create a special group of lawyers, apart from the public prosecutor, who would see cases through. In most cases, the State goes unrepresented while the traders hire the best lawyers to argue their case.
It was only in 1994 that an NGO, the Wildlife Protection Society of India, started a legal cell with the sole aim of assisting the government in court. They have a panel of 17 lawyers all over India fighting over 300 cases. In fact, the Sunderbans prosecution was a result of their efforts.
It is obvious that every state has to devise a way to see wildlife cases to a logical conclusion. It is convictions, rather than seizures, that deserve to be celebrated.
