Forest Department clarifies wildlife law amid Phek case controversy
MTNews Mokokchung | 6 October
The Nagaland Forest Department has clarified the applicability and scope of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in the State amid the ongoing controversy surrounding a recent wildlife case in Phek District, stating that taking wildlife from the wild and keeping it without permission constitutes an offence even when the animal or bird is not killed.
Delivering the keynote address at the Wildlife Week 2026 celebration held at Mokokchung Town Hall on October 6, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and HoFF Vedpal Singh, IFS, said the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is applicable in Nagaland as it was adopted by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly.
Addressing misconceptions surrounding the recent Phek case, Singh said the department had not charged the accused for taking a photograph of the bird.
“We did not charge him for photography. We charged him for two accounts — taking the bird and keeping the bird. Taking photo and uploading it is not an offence. But taking from the wild and keeping in captivity are offence,” he said.
Singh said the Act does not permit individuals to take wildlife from forests without authorisation, regardless of whether the intention is to kill the animal.
“Even if you don’t kill, but you took anything from the wild, it is illegal because it is government property under the Act,” he said, adding that wildlife taken from the wild cannot be kept without a permit.
He further explained that the definition of “hunting” under Section 2(16) of the Act is broader than simply killing an animal. It includes killing, poisoning, capturing, chasing, trapping, snaring, driving, baiting or injuring wildlife, as well as attempting to carry out such acts. In the case of wild birds and reptiles, the provision also covers damaging or disturbing eggs or nests.
The department has also highlighted that setting a trap or snare can itself constitute an act of hunting, even if the animal is not ultimately killed.
Article 371A and the Wildlife Act
On questions over the relationship between Article 371A of the Constitution and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, Development Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Y Kikheto Sema, IAS, said the department’s position was that the Act has been passed by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and therefore has to be implemented.
“We are no legal experts, but for us, the law has been passed and thus, we will have to implement the Wildlife Act,” Sema said.
He said the Wildlife Act was adopted by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly in 1981 and has subsequently undergone several amendments, including in 1982, 1986, 1991, 1992, 2002, 2006 and 2022.
Sema said the 2022 amendment significantly strengthened the provisions of the law and that the department was implementing the amended provisions.
He said Nagaland also established a Wildlife Crime Branch in September 2015.
According to Sema, around 50 persons have been caught under the Act during the last year and this year, with cases involving different communities. He listed 17 Sumi, 12 Lotha, six Zeliang, four Ao, four Rengma, two Angami, two Phom, two from other communities and one recent Chakhesang case.
He said cases are dealt with under the provisions of the Act and that an offence can attract penalties of up to Rs 5 lakh, depending on the case. He added that Rs 31.35 lakh has so far been collected through penalties and deposited into the government account.
Sema also said that since 2015, 74 cases had been compounded, with 69 persons opting to settle the cases through payment of penalties rather than proceeding to court.
Reflecting on the adoption of the law in 1981, Sema said it was not known whether adequate public consultation had taken place at the time or whether politicians and bureaucrats had been sufficiently guided on the implications of the legislation.
He noted that the law was adopted during the period of the United Democratic Front-NDPP government, with late JB Jasokie as Chief Minister and late Noke as Forest Minister, while Vitsonei K. Angami was Speaker and Dr SC Jamir was Leader of the Opposition.
“So, it was not forced down by New Delhi,” he said.
Need for greater awareness
Sema acknowledged shortcomings on the part of the Forest Department in creating awareness about the legislation and its amendments.
“Humans make mistake and Forest Department has also made mistakes, which is, we did not create enough awareness. We did not explain when amendments were made,” he said.
He said the department now recognises the need to translate the provisions of the law into local languages and introduce greater awareness at the elementary school level. He also called for stronger involvement of churches and civil society organisations in conservation awareness.
The department also addressed the ongoing standoff with the Centre Chakhesang Youth Organisation (CCYO), which recently announced a non-cooperation movement against the Forest Department and lifted the hunting prohibition in the Centre Chakhesang area.
Asked about the development, Singh described it as “unfortunate” and said the department was making efforts to resolve the impasse.
He said the department could not disclose all the information relating to its efforts but was trying to communicate with the concerned parties with the hope that the situation could be resolved positively.
On the return of a Great Barbet to the CCYO, Singh said the department had taken the step to de-escalate the situation and build confidence.
He said the bird was case property, but the department had gone “out of our way” in returning it in the hope that the CCYO would reciprocate.
Singh also explained that wildlife cannot simply be kept in captivity and that the department assesses whether an animal or bird can survive in the wild before releasing it.
Villages raise human-elephant conflict
The Wildlife Week program also provided a platform for representatives from Longkhum and Waromung villages to raise concerns over human-elephant conflict.
A representative from Longkhum said a herd of elephants had been residing in the forest area for the past four years. As villagers clear portions of the area for jhum cultivation every three years, encounters with the elephants have increased. Last year, tomatoes and paddy cultivated near the area were damaged by elephants.
The village acknowledged government assistance and sought suggestions on ways to drive the elephants away from cultivated areas without harming them.
A representative from Waromung said three wild elephants repeatedly enter the village and are encountered along routes to agricultural fields, sometimes individually and at other times in groups of four or five.
The village suggested fencing agricultural fields and providing solar lights, noting that the presence of solar lights appeared to discourage elephants. It also suggested placing leaves or food along routes away from the village to divert the animals.
The department said research is underway on elephant management and took note of the concerns raised by the two villages.
The department further said damage caused by wildlife is now considered under the Natural Disaster framework, allowing affected persons to seek compensation through the Natural Disaster Fund.
The Wildlife Week 2026 celebration was held under the theme “Connecting Habitats, Thriving Wildlife”, with discussions centred on wildlife protection, community participation and the challenges of balancing conservation with the livelihood needs of local communities. Minister for Forest, Environment and Climate Change, CL John, was the special guest.