Wildlife Protection Laws: Judicial Activism for Biodiversity
India is home to some of the richest biodiversity in the world, hosting nearly 8% of global species diversity. To safeguard this natural heritage, Parliament enacted the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, forming the backbone of India’s wildlife conservation framework. The Act prohibits the hunting of wild animals, regulates trade in wildlife products, and establishes protected areas such as national parks, sanctuaries, and tiger reserves. Yet, despite these legislative measures, threats like deforestation, poaching, illegal trade, and habitat fragmentation persist. In this context, judicial activism has played a transformative role in protecting biodiversity and enforcing environmental accountability.
The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, has consistently expanded the scope of environmental protection through an activist interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life. The Court has held that the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment, encompassing clean air, water, and ecological balance. In landmark cases like T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court evolved a continuing mandamus to oversee forest and wildlife protection. It monitored logging bans, regulated forest diversions, and ordered the creation of bodies like the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) for implementation and supervision.
Similarly, in Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013), the Court recognized the concept of eco-centric principles, stating that nature has intrinsic value, independent of human use. Judicial activism thus shifted environmental governance from a purely anthropocentric model to one that respects the rights of all living beings. The judiciary has also invoked doctrines such as the precautionary principle, public trust doctrine, and sustainable development, ensuring that economic growth does not come at the cost of biodiversity loss.
At the same time, courts have intervened to ensure better enforcement of wildlife protection laws. They have directed states to curb illegal mining and encroachments near wildlife habitats, banned commercial tourism in core tiger areas until proper guidelines were framed, and monitored the implementation of Project Tiger and Project Elephant. These judicial interventions have compelled executive accountability and strengthened institutional capacity for conservation.
However, critics argue that excessive judicial activism sometimes leads to judicial overreach, where courts take over administrative functions, leading to policy paralysis. They emphasize that environmental governance should remain a collaborative process involving the legislature, executive, judiciary, and local communities. Yet, in a country where enforcement remains weak and corruption undermines environmental regulation, judicial vigilance often becomes the last line of defense for protecting biodiversity.
In conclusion, judicial activism in wildlife protection has been a cornerstone of India’s environmental jurisprudence. Through proactive interpretation and continuous monitoring, the judiciary has ensured that the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, remains a living law rather than a dormant statute. By balancing conservation with sustainable development and recognizing the ecological rights of future generations, India’s courts have emerged as powerful guardians of biodiversity—transforming environmental protection from a policy goal into a constitutional duty.