Michael Renpen Y Khuvung
Dimapur
Every species—from microbes to apex predators—plays a critical role in maintaining a resilient & balanced ecosystem. One key aspect of predator-prey relationships is that they help prevent harmful diseases. For example, when natural predators disappear, rodent and insect populations can quickly rise, increasing transmission of vector-borne illnesses to human communities. Disrupting this natural chain can also cause widespread crop failures, significantly affecting farmers’ livelihoods.
As Wildlife Week approaches, it is vital to understand its importance and the crucial role each species plays in maintaining ecological balance and a healthy ecosystem. Nagaland, part of the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot—one of India’s four biodiversity hotspots and one of the 36 recognized globally—is a biologically rich yet heavily threatened region that needs greater public awareness and care.
The recent case of Vezhoto Hesuh and its alleged captivity of various animals, all falling under Schedule II species of the Wildlife Protection Act, have once again highlighted the need for greater public awareness of wildlife laws and conservation. The issue has attracted considerable public attention and should be addressed through the appropriate legal procedures if at all found guilty. At the same time, the concerned department has an important responsibility to communicate clearly with the public and ensure that enforcement actions are transparent, lawful, and consistent with due process.
The confusion and controversy could have been avoided if officials had properly informed the offenders about Nagaland's wildlife protection rules and handled the situation transparently and lawfully.
However, a lack of clarity from both sides led to unnecessary escalation. As a concerned citizen and a wildlife enthusiast, I believe it’s important to highlight this issue to inform the public and clear up misconceptions spreading on social media around Article 371A and the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is India’s foundational legal framework for safeguarding wild animals, birds, and plants. It governs hunting, poaching, and the commercial trade of wildlife products, while granting the legal authority to establish National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, and Conservation Reserves. To keep pace with modern ecological crises and international treaty commitments, the Act underwent a significant overhaul through the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022. This amendment substantially restructured the law, streamlining the classification system from the original six schedules down to four primary schedules.
In Nagaland, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, interacts with Article 371A of the Indian Constitution, which grants the state legislative independence over traditional land ownership and customary laws.
First, the 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution places both forests and the protection of wild animals and birds in List III, the Concurrent List. This means both the central and state governments can legislate on matters related to forests and wildlife. If a conflict occurs between a central law and a state law on a concurrent subject, the central law prevails.
Second, Article 371A acts as a constitutional safeguard by stating that no Act of Parliament concerning Naga social practices or land resources applies to Nagaland unless the Nagaland Legislative Assembly (NLA) adopts it through a resolution.
Since the NLA officially voted to adopt and implement the Central Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, on December 18, 1981, Nagaland voluntarily brought itself under India's wildlife laws. As a result, the ban on hunting wild animals and birds applies to Nagaland just as it does across the rest of India.
Under Article 371A, indigenous communities own about 88% of Nagaland's forests, but land ownership does not mean ownership of the wildlife that passes through those lands.
The statutory ban overrides any customary practices involving hunting or harming wild animals. Furthermore, protections under Article 371A are not absolute; if customs conflict with human rights, gender equality, national welfare laws, or animal welfare laws, legal mechanisms exist for reform. In other words, Article 371A does not give the Naga people an unlimited right to hunt wild animals.
Under the protection of Article 371A, neither Naga customary law, social practices, nor land ownership grants anyone the legal right to hunt wild animals in Nagaland. Land ownership does not equate to wildlife ownership.
Some may argue that enforcement agencies must differentiate between illegal poaching networks and innocent, minor customary interactions with animals, such as keeping a traditional village bird.
However, from a strict legal perspective, the Chief Wildlife Warden of Nagaland official stance remains clear: hunting wild animals or birds is strictly forbidden, with no exceptions for time or species, except for animals legally designated as vermin. (Note: In ecological and legal terms, vermin refers to certain wild animals considered pests, nuisances, or disease vectors because they destroy crops, damage property, or threaten livestock and human health.) Therefore, any initiatives by the responsible department against citizens who harm or abuse wild animals not listed as vermin are encouraged, provided the laws are not applied arbitrarily, and actions against offenders are just, transparent, and free from shady motives.
The current scheduled species (Post-2022 framework):
Schedule I: Absolute Protection (Highest Tier). This schedule is reserved for endangered species facing severe extinction threats. Hunting, trapping, or trading these animals attracts the highest criminal penalties.
Species include: Bengal Tiger, Asiatic Elephant, Snow Leopard, Hoolock Gibbon, Indian pangolin, One-horned Rhinoceros, and Blyth’s Tragopan (Nagaland's state bird), checkered keelback, tokay gecko, great Indian hornbill, monitor lizards, etc.
Schedule II: High Protection. This tier safeguards specified mammalian, bird, reptile, and amphibian species that are not critically endangered but require strict legal safeguards to prevent population decline. Hunting is strictly prohibited.
Species include: Various species of deer (like Barking Deer), civets, jackals, Great Barbet, spotted owl, rhesus macaque, and other common indigenous birds, etc.
Schedule III: Protected Plants. Formerly Schedule VI, this schedule regulates the possession, cultivation, and trade of specified rare and endangered flora. Gathering or uprooting these plants from the wild without a Forest Department license is illegal.
Species include: Pitcher Plant, Blue Vanda, Red Vanda, and Ladies Slipper Orchids, etc.
Schedule IV: CITES Species (International Trade). This schedule was newly created to align Indian law with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It regulates specimens, exotic pets, and international wildlife parts to prevent global trafficking.
Species include: African Elephants, orangutans, Chimpanzees, and various exotic macaws or reptiles imported into India.
Critical Changes to Know following the landmark 2022 Amendment Act:
The elimination of Schedule V (Vermin): Historically, Schedule V contained permanently unprotected animals (like common crows, fruit bats, mice, and rats) that anyone could hunt. This schedule has been entirely removed, and the earlier category of permanently unprotected vermin no longer applies. The Central Government must issue a temporary, area-specific notification to permit the culling of any problematic species.
Under Section 62 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Central Government (via the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) has exclusive authority to issue a vermin notification.
However, the State Government plays a critical role in the process through a specific multi-step framework. While the State Government cannot reclassify an entire species as vermin, the state's Chief Wildlife Warden holds independent emergency powers under Section 11 of the Act.
The Common Legal Section:
Both Schedule I and Schedule II species are subject to penalties under section 51. This section provides the applicable penalties for offences under the act, depending on the species involved and the circumstances of the offence.
Standard penalties for Schedule I species:
• Minimum jail term: 3 years. Maximum jail term: 7 years.
• Minimum fine: Rs 25,000. Maximum fine: Scaled by the court.
Standard penalties for Schedule II species:
• No minimum jail term. Maximum jail term: 3 years.
• No minimum fine. Maximum fine: Rs 1 Lakh.
(Note: If a Schedule II animal is hunted inside a designated National Park or Sanctuary, the penalty shifts into the 3-to-7-year bracket with a Rs 25,000 minimum fine, treating it with the same severity as a Schedule I offense).
Regarding the recent controversy: under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, forest officials are enforcement and investigative authorities, not judges, and their powers under Section 50 are strictly limited. They cannot exercise the functions of a court by arbitrarily determining guilt & imposing fines.
The standard procedure involves forwarding the case to a Judicial Magistrate after filing a wildlife offense report. Only the court has the legal authority to conduct a trial, declare guilt, and impose a prison sentence or official fine. In cases involving Schedule II species, there is no obligatory lower limit ('minimum fine'); the precise monetary penalty is entirely at the magistrate’s discretion, depending on the severity of the specific case (e.g., a first-time local offender versus someone attempting to smuggle meat).
However, a specific legal exception called 'Compounding an Offense' under Section 54 should not be confused with a direct fine. Instead of a lengthy, public trial, the law allows minor offenses to be settled outside court through compounding, which involves a regulated process.
Who can do it?
On-the-spot guards or low-ranking rangers cannot undertake this. Only senior officers not below the rank of a Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) or the Chief Wildlife Warden are authorized to compound an offense.
How does it work?
The suspect voluntarily agrees to pay a sum of money (called a 'composition fee,' not exceeding five lakh rupees) to the forest department as compensation. Once this fee is agreed upon and officially paid into the government account, the suspect is released from custody, and all criminal proceedings are dropped.
(Note: Offences involving schedule I species cannot be compounded or settled outside the court.)
The proviso of Section 54(4) explicitly states that any offense with a prescribed minimum period of imprisonment cannot be compounded. Since Schedule I species carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years in prison, an officer cannot legally offer to settle the case for money.
Anyone caught with a Schedule I species offence must be taken to court for a criminal trial, with no option to pay. If a low-level official demands cash on the spot without the legally required authorization under section 54, it constitutes an illegal demand, not a lawful penalty.
It is also important to note that keeping a wild animal in captivity or a cage is legally regarded as the same offense as hunting. Many people mistakenly believe that hunting only involves killing or shooting an animal with a weapon. However, the legal definition of 'Hunting' under Section 2(16) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is intentionally broad. It explicitly includes capturing, snaring, trapping, or baiting any wild animal, or attempting to do so. Because keeping an animal in captivity generally involves its prior capture or trapping, which violates Section 9 of the Act (prohibits hunting).
Interestingly, in the infamous case of YouTuber Roving Naga in early 2025, his offense was compounded despite involving a Schedule I species, allowing him to avoid imprisonment. Some see it as an act of mercy or compassion from the department, as well as a pragmatic enforcement choice. Unaware of the law, the YouTuber treated the Schedule I species, the Checkered Keelback, a non-poisonous, semi-aquatic water snake native to Nagaland as a delicacy and shared it in the digital social platform, which ultimately served as a lesson for every citizen of the state and particularly for the irresponsible social-media influencers, to be wary of the legal and ecological consequences of their actions and adventure responsibly. The case attracted public attention and raised questions on the application of wildlife law.
Historically and culturally, hunting has been deeply rooted in ancestral Naga history, rituals and folklore. But back then, Nagas hunted as part of their way of life, for sustenance, or during social rituals. It was for subsistence and local consumption, regulated by strict traditional ethics that prevented overexploitation.
Moreover, such practices are regarded as a cultural tradition rather than a legally protected constitutional right. Naga customary law is largely unwritten and varies by tribe. No formal tribal council or court has successfully argued that Article 371A provides a legal exemption from protecting or killing endangered species. In fact, the strongest intersection of customary law and wildlife protection occurs when communities choose to restrict or ban hunting. The successful revival of the Amur Falcons in Pangti village, Wokha exemplifies how village councils have used their Article 371A powers to outlaw hunting and protect wildlife through community-led conservation.
Today, although museums, cultural festivals like the Hornbill Festival, and traditional clothing preserve the symbols and memories of hunting, modern Naga identity is rapidly shifting toward becoming custodians and protectors of their ancestral forests and fading biodiversity. It is time for a change in attitude and a lasting shift—driven by the move to a modern economy and the availability of alternative, abundant food sources. There should be no excuses. The modern Naga diet relies heavily on farm-raised meats such as pork, beef, and chicken, along with a wide variety of locally grown vegetables, legumes, and grains. Since the state is well connected to mainstream agricultural markets, wild meat is no longer a nutritional necessity for survival. Moving away from bushmeat is a logical step toward sustainable public health and food security. Extreme condemnation & greater scrutiny should be directed at individuals who, despite having secure jobs, income, and access to modern markets, still hunt under the pretext of survival. In such cases, hunting ceases to be about survival or nutrition and instead becomes a matter of leisure, status, luxury, and a waste of education.
The key paradigm shift is recognizing that cultural preservation does not require wildlife exploitation. Instead, modern Naga identity is increasingly characterized by using their land rights to become the ultimate protectors of the Indo-Myanmar biodiversity hotspot.
To me, that represents patriotism at its finest.
The writer is a Science Educator and Communicator (Msc Zoo, Csir Net, University of Delhi), Department of Science & Technology, Government of Nagaland
