HC quashes 'shoot at sight' order against tigress

Image
Press Trust of India Nagpur
Last Updated : Jun 29 2017 | 7:29 PM IST
The Bombay High Court today quashed a Maharashtra forest authorities' shoot-at-sight order against a tigress of Brahmapuri forest area, dubbed as a "man-eater."
The shoot-at-sight order was quashed by the Nagpur bench of the high court on a plea by Dr Jerryl Avinash Banait, a medical practitioner and a wildlife enthusiast.
While hearing the plea, the division bench of justices B P Dharmadhikari and Rohit Deo also also castigated the forest authorities for their "casual and callous" approach on a serious issue of human safety and the tiger conservation.
The Maharashtra principal chief conservator of forest (PCCF) had issued the shoot-at-sight order against the tigress on June 23 after she was suspected to have killed two persons and injured two others in Brahmapuri forest area in Chandrapur.
Dr Jerryl had challenged the shoot-at-sight order to kill the tigress 'T-27 cub-1' under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
"Two deaths caused by the tigress occurred in the reserved jungle/ buffer zone, where humans cannot enter normally. The illegal entry of humans in reserved jungle/ protected area is violation of section 9 of the WLPA, 1972. Hence, the tigress should not be labelled as a man-eater," the petitioner said.
Counsel for the forest department, Ketki Joshi, admitted that the tigress could not be treated as a man-eater.
The high court accepted the arguments made by the petitioner and quashed the PCCF order.
Petitioner's lawyer Tushar Mandlekar said the high court observed that the order had been passed without following the due process of law and was in violation of the guidelines issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) on January 30, 2013.
The high court also found that the identification of the tigress and process contemplated in the NTCA guidelines was not followed, he said.
The NTCA guidelines state that the identity of the animal must be obtained through a committee constituted for the purpose, through camera trappings or direct sighting or pug impressions, besides collecting pieces of hair/excreta for DNA profiling.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jun 29 2017 | 7:29 PM IST

Next Story