Parks and sanctuaries management issues for conservation of wildlife

Subject: Legal Analysis of Management Issues in Protected Areas (PAs) vis-à-vis Human Rights

1. The Jurisprudential Conflict: “Fortress Conservation” vs. Rights-Based Approaches

the central issue in managing National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries is not merely ecological; it is the collision of two legal doctrines:

The Doctrine of Eminent Domain: The State’s power to assert absolute control over natural resources (asserted via the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972).
The Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Recognized under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) and international instruments like UNDRIP.¹

The prevailing management model in India is often termed “Fortress Conservation,” which assumes that biodiversity can only be protected by excluding human presence. This creates a direct violation of the Right to Livelihood (Article 21) for forest-dwelling communities.

2. The Statutory Antinomy: WPA, 1972 vs. FRA, 2006

The most critical management issue is the legal incoherence between our two primary statutes.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA): Historically, this Act criminalized the presence of people in National Parks (S. 35) and Sanctuaries (S. 26A). It views forest dwellers as “encroachers.”
The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA): This was a remedial statute intended to correct “historical injustice.”² It grants Community Forest Rights (CFR) and recognizes the right to manage forests.³

The Conflict: Management authorities often continue to apply the WPA draconically, ignoring the non-obstante clause in Section 4 of the FRA, which supposedly overrides other laws. This leads to the criminalization of customary practices (e.g., collecting honey or firewood), where tribals are booked for “poaching” or “trespass” for exercising what are now their statutory rights.

3. Critical Human Rights Issues in Management

A. “Voluntary” Relocation and Critical Tiger Habitats (CTHs)

Under Section 38V of the WPA (added in 2006), relocation from Tiger Reserves can only occur if:

It is scientifically established that coexistence is impossible.
The community has given Informed Consent.

The Reality: We observe a pattern of “manufactured consent.” Gram Sabhas are often bypassed, or consent is obtained under duress (threats of stopping electricity/water).⁴

Legal Critique: This violates the Right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).⁵ When “voluntary” relocation is coerced, it amounts to Forced Eviction, a gross violation of human rights under international law (UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions).

B. Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) and State Liability

When wildlife management fails to contain animals within PAs, and they damage life or property, it triggers the Right to Life (Article 21).

The Liability Issue: The Courts (e.g., in T.N. Godavarman) have increasingly held the State liable. However, compensation is often ex-gratia (charity) rather than a statutory right.⁶
The Management Failure: The lack of functional corridors forces animals into human settlements. From a rights perspective, the State’s failure to maintain corridors constitutes negligence, making them vicariously liable for the resulting loss of life.

C. Due Process Violations in “Settlement of Rights”

Before an area is notified as a National Park, the Collector must inquire into and “settle” the rights of people living there (Sections 19-25 WPA).⁷

The Issue: In many PAs, this process has been pending for decades. These are called “Deemed Sanctuaries.” Residents live in a legal limbo where they cannot sell land, access bank loans, or get development schemes, yet they are not fully resettled. This is a violation of the Right to Property (Article 300A) and the Right to Development.

4. Recent Judicial Trends & The “Coexistence” Paradigm

The Supreme Court is currently seizing the Wildlife First v. Union of India case. The initial 2019 order to evict millions of forest dwellers whose FRA claims were rejected (often on flimsy technical grounds) highlights the fragility of these rights.⁸

Conclusion & Way Forward

the management of parks and sanctuaries must shift from a “policing” model to a “trusteeship” model.

Legal Harmonization: The WPA must be amended to explicitly incorporate the Gram Sabha’s role in management (as per FRA).
Co-Management: We must move toward the model used in the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) Tiger Reserve, where Soliga tribals co-manage the forest.

My submission is that conservation without justice is essentially a prolonged trespass by the State.