- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sh. Sukhdev Singh Roy v. Union Of India & Others .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, an agriculturist owning land in Qutabpur village, Ghaziabad, challenged provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended by Act 44 of 1991. [1]
He relied on the earlier State notification declaring wild boar vermin and contended that the amended Act transferred this power from the State Government to the Central Government. [2] The writ petition was dismissed in limine. [3]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Parliament exceeded its legislative competence by transferring to the Central Government the power to declare certain wild animals vermin, allegedly encroaching upon the State legislative field concerning agriculture. [1][2]
- Whether the amended provisions were vague and reflected a lack of application of mind by Parliament. [4]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The amended Section 62 improperly transferred to the Central Government the power previously exercised by the States to declare specified wild animals vermin. [1]
- Wild boars and blue bulls allegedly destroyed crops in the petitioner's area, but the Central Government had not issued a notification declaring them vermin there. [2]
- The amendment encroached upon the State's legislative competence over agriculture under Entry 14 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. [2]
- The amended provisions were vague and demonstrated a lack of application of mind by Parliament. [4]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court identified Entry 17B of List III, concerning the protection of wild animals and birds, as the relevant constitutional legislative entry. [5][6]
It examined the Act's preamble, which states that the legislation provides for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and related matters. [7][8]
The Court reasoned that the Act protects biodiversity, which it regarded as essential to human survival and dependent ecological systems. [9]
Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the Court held that Section 62 substantially concerned the protection of animals and birds, a subject within the Concurrent List. [10]
The fact that the provision might incidentally affect agriculture did not render it unconstitutional. The provision did not purport to legislate on agriculture but was directed toward animal and bird protection. [10]
The Court declined to examine the alleged vagueness or Parliament's lack of application of mind because legislative wisdom could not be tested by the courts under the guise of judicial review. [4]
Holding and Implications
WRIT PETITION DISMISSED IN LIMINE. The Court rejected the challenge to the amended provisions and held that they did not encroach upon the State's legislative field. [10][3]
The direct effect was that the petitioner's challenge failed and the amended statutory scheme remained undisturbed. No broader implications or new precedent were identified in the opinion.
Anil Dev Singh, J.:— This writ petition calls in question some provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended by Act 44 of 1991. The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist owning land in village Qutabpur, Tehsil Garhmukteshwar, District Ghaziabad, U.P and submits that the Parliament in passing the amendment Act has encroached upon the legislative field reserved for the States. Mr. Narender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that under section 62 of the unamended act the States had been given power to declare any wild animal other than those specified in Schedule. I and Part II of Schedule II to be vermim for any area for such period as may be specified therein, but under the amending Act this power has been taken over by the Centre. He has invited our attention to section 62 of the amended act, by virtue of which the Central Government has been given power to declare by means of a notification any wild animal other than those specified in Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II to be vermin for any area. The learned counsel also invited our attention to Schedule V of the Act, in which following animals have been shown as vermin:
1. Common crow
2. Fruit bats
3. Mice
4. Rats
2. Mr. Singh contended that the the wild animals like wild boars and blue bulls destroy the crops and the same are found in great numbers in the area in which the land of the petitioner is located. He submits that the Central Government has not issued any notification under section 62 of the Amending Act declaring the said animals to be vermin for the area in question. He has drawn our attention to an earlier notification dated 26th November, 1990 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the unamended Act whereby wild boar was declared as vermin. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the Parliament by taking away the power of the State Government to declare the said animals, which are destructive of the crops, as vermins and conferring the same on the Central Government has acted beyond its legislative competence as these matters pertain to agriculture falling in Entry 14 of in List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution.
3. We have given our earnest consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel but regret our inability to accept the same. Entry 17B of List III of 7th Schedule reads as under:
“17B. Protection of wild animals and birds”.
4. At this stage, preamble to the Act may also be noticed, which is in the following terms:
“An Act to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto.”
5. A reading of the preamable shows that this Act is meant to protect the bio diversity, which is so very essential for survival of human race. By saving it we are only saving ourselves and preventing the world to perish as all beins and plants are interdependent upon each other for their existence.
6. Section 62 deals with wild animals, a subject which squarely falls in Entry 17B of List III,-Concurrent list, of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, with regard to which Parliament has also the legislative competence to enact a law. Argument of the learned counsel that the legislation has encroached upon the State field as saving of crops from wild boars and blue bulls is a subject pertaining to agricluture with regard to which only States have power to legislate under Entry 14 of List II of the 7th Schedule, is not correct. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance we find that the provisions of the Act especially Section 62 wholly fall within the purview of Entry 17B of List III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Merely because some provision of the Act in its sweep touchs a subject which falls in the State List would not make the provisions unconstitutional. The said section does not purport to enact any provision relating to agriculture but is directed towards protection of animals and birds. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the learned counsel that the Act impinges upon the field reserved for the States.
7. The other contention of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the provisions of the amended act suffer from vagueness and show lack of application of mind by the Parliament, cannot be gone into as the wisdom of the Parliament cannot be tested by courts in the garb of judicial review.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
Alert