Kerala Wildlife Protection Act Amendment 2025

Kerala Proposes Amendment to Wildlife Protection Act

Why in the News?

The Kerala government has introduced the Wildlife Protection (Kerala Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the state assembly. This move, which intersects with ongoing debates on fiscal federalism and environmental governance, seeks to give states more powers under Section 62 and Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, triggering debates over legality and conservation.

Key Provisions and State’s Argument:

• The Bill proposes to amend Section 62, allowing the state government to declare a species under Schedule II as vermin for a limited period, based on recommendations of a state-appointed expert panel. This amendment reflects the ongoing push for fiscal decentralisation in Indian fiscal federalism.
• Currently, only the Union government holds this power under the central Act, highlighting the vertical fiscal imbalance in wildlife management decisions.
• Another provision seeks to amend Section 11, empowering the Chief Wildlife Warden, on reports from the District Collector or Chief Conservator of Forests, to order a wild animal to be killed, tranquilised, captured, or relocated if it poses threats to people. This change could impact intergovernmental fiscal transfers related to wildlife management.
• Forest Minister A.K. Saseendran argued that these changes would help reduce the rising man-animal conflict and ensure the protection of both humans and wildlife, while also improving the state’s environmental performance index.
• After brief discussions, the Bill was referred to the subject committee for further examination, considering its implications on fiscal consolidation and environmental externalities.

Concerns and Reactions

• Environmentalists and animal rights groups have criticized the Bill as “unscientific” and “legally unsustainable,” raising concerns about its impact on climate change governance.
• They argue it may lead to excessive culling, undermining conservation goals and biodiversity commitments, potentially affecting ecological fiscal transfers.
• Opposition leader V.D. Satheesan (Congress) expressed conditional support but raised doubts about the legal viability of amending a central Act at the state level, highlighting the complexities of multi-level governance in wildlife protection.
• Experts fear this move could set a precedent for other states seeking greater control, weakening the uniform protection mechanism and potentially impacting the tax devolution formula for environmental protection.
• The debate highlights the tension between conservation laws and local livelihood concerns, particularly in states facing frequent human-wildlife conflict, and raises questions about the role of state finance commissions in addressing these issues.