Wild animals are not property of Central government, States: Madras High Court allows transfer of 1,000 crocodiles to Gujarat

The Madras High Court recently held that wild animals are the wealth of the nation and neither the Central nor State government or anyone else can claim ownership over them. [A Viswanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu].A Bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala thus held the transfer of 1,000 crocodiles from a rehabilitation centre in Tamil Nadu to a zoo in Jamnagar, Gujarat to be legal.."Wild animals are not the property of state or central governments, any organization or persons , they are the wealth of the nation and so no one can claim ownership of them. The fauna and flora are to be protected for the environmental security of the nation for future generations. The welfare of the animals should be the prime concern and the guiding light in matters concerning them," the Bench observed..Invoking Mahatma Gandhi, the Court reiterated that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated.The Bench, while referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union of India, noted that courts should have an eco-centric approach rather than anthropocentric one."The Supreme Court has held that eco-centric is life centred, nature centred where nature includes both human and non-humans. Anthropocentric on the other hand is always human interest focused. The rescue and rehabilitation of the crocodiles in issue have to be viewed from eco-centric angle...".The Court was seized of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the validity of the transfer of 1,000 crocodiles from Madras Crocodile Bank Trust in Tamil Nadu to Greens Zoological, Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre at Jamnagar in Gujarat.The PIL petitioner contended that the zoo in Gujarat was not conforming with the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009 and the National Zoo Policy, 1998. He claimed that the owner of the zoo in Gujarat was a private party who was given permission to run a mini-zoo, but established a huge one. The petition thus sought a probe by either the State CID or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the allegedly illegal transfer of the crocodiles..On the other hand, the authorities clarified that all the provisions were followed while permitting the zoo in Gujarat to operate. It was further highlighted that the rehabilitation centre in Chennai had less space as a result of which these 1,000 surplus crocodiles were cramped for room, while the zoo in Gujarat was spacious..While dismissing the petition, the Bench noted that the rehab centre in Chennai does not have the funds to look after the surplus crocodiles and that it has also vouched for the welfare of the crocodiles at the zoo in Gujarat."Our nation culturally has always been Eco-centric. We believe in peaceful co-existence with all creatures and our love and reverence for the animal world is reflected in our religion, folklore, art and craft. From ancient times we are known to have protected, venerated and conserved wild life," the Bench observed.After going through various provisions of the laws discussed in the matter, the Court concluded that there can be a private zoo apart from the ones operated by the Central or State government..Government Pleader P Muthukumar appeared for the State. Senior Advocate Atul Nanda and Advocate Dr Sujay Kantawala represented the zoo in Gujarat. Advocates Niranjan Rajagopalan and Meghna Kumar represented the rehab centre at Chennai.