Ahmedabad: Disturbing a wild animal by shining a light on it does not amount to hunting, the Gujarat High Court held recently while quashing proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act against a television journalist. The Court, however, described the journalist’s act as ‘reckless and antagonistic to wildlife conservation ethics’, and granted permission to the forest department to prosecute him accordingly.
Manish Bhupendrabhai Panwala, a journalist then associated with NDTV, and two members of an NGO, had allegedly flashed lights from an SUV on a lion at the Gir National Park in 2009 Gujarat on November 5, 2009, while the animal was feeding.
Forest department officials were on a lion counting duty at that time and spotted the SUV and some people on the Madhupur Road. Panwala and two others were inside the vehicle, flashing the headlights at a lion and filming it. The three were arrested and their vehicle and cameras seized. They were later released on bail.
Hearing an appeal by Panwala, Justice J C Doshi held that his act does not fall within the definition of ‘hunting’ under Section 2(16)(b) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
“The definition of “hunting” contemplates acts such as capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring, or trapping of a wild animal, or attempts thereof, or actions that cause physical harm or destruction. Merely disturbing a lion, does not meet the threshold to constitute an offence of “hunting” under the Act,” Justice Doshi observed.
The Court said that though Panwala’s actions were unwise or imprudent, it did not satisfy the statutory prerequisites to constitute any cognizable wildlife offence under the Act.
The Court also stated that it cannot remain oblivious to the fact that Panwala’s conduct reveals “a disquieting insensitivity” towards the natural habitat of a protected species.
“As admitted, the petitioners disturbed a lion while it was feeding upon its prey during the night hours by flashing lights from a vehicle, thereby intruding upon its habitat and causing disruption. Though not constituting “hunting” as defined under Section 2(16)(b) of the Act, such actions can only be described as reckless and antagonistic to wildlife conservation ethics,” it added.
In this regard, the Court recorded that Panwala had voluntarily donated Rs 1 lakh to the Gujarat State Lion Conservation Society at Junagadh as a gesture of contrition and support for wildlife preservation.
While this cannot retrospectively “legalize an otherwise flawed prosecution”, it was certainly indicative of a corrective and reformative attitude deserving of due notice, Justice Doshi observed.
While quashing the ongoing proceedings against Panwala, the High Court clarified that an authorized officer can still initiate appropriate proceedings in the case on the basis of material collected during the investigation in accordance with the law.
