PIL flags low detention of forest offenders; HC seeks report

Madurai: Madras high court has sought a report from the state forest department on a public interest litigation flagging fewer detentions under Goondas Act against wildlife and forest offences in the state.

The Madurai bench of the court issued notice to the state govt and directed that a report be filed before July 20.Petitioner, advocate R Manibharathi, sought directions for effective implementation of ‘forest offender’ provision under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, to prevent forest and wildlife crimes. The plea said wildlife offences in southern Tamil Nadu were being committed by organised groups and habitual offenders.

It referred to illegal tree felling, timber smuggling, poaching, wildlife trade, destruction of elephant corridors, forest fires caused for occupation, and obstruction of forest officials.The petitioner cited sea cucumber smuggling in Rameswaram and said the endangered species was listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The affidavit also referred to seizure of elephant tusks from a house at Gangakulam near Sivakasi on May 6, illegal felling of more than 1,200 trees in Mannavanur Beat in Kodaikanal last December, seizure of two elephant tusks weighing 3.9kg by Coastal Security Group at Keelakarai on Dec 7, and seizure of tiger and leopard skins in Dindigul on Dec 11.

Citing a research paper, he said only 26 people were detained as forest offenders between 2009 and 2019, though thousands were detained under other categories of the Act. He sought directions to the authorities to issue instructions to district collectors, police and forest officials to invoke provision against habitual forest offenders.According to the petitioner, ‘forest offenders’ were brought within the ambit of the preventive detention law through a 1988 amendment after the state recognised illicit cutting of trees and killing of wild animals affected the ecological system. He said district collectors and other detaining authorities were empowered to invoke the law against those whose activities affected public order. However, it was not being invoked against people repeatedly involved in forest and wildlife offences, he said.