Declare wild pigs as vermin in conflict zones, Kerala asks Centre in fresh appeal
The State's demands chiefly include an amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the declaration of wild pigs as vermin, at least temporarily in identified hotspots.
The renewed appeal comes in the light of a letter from the Union Ministry, explaining the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, particularly those pertaining to hunting animals listed under Schedules I and II.
'Limits powers'
Arguing that these limited the powers of the Chief Wildlife Warden and hampered timely action, Mr. Saseendran also flagged the ambiguity in the definition of the term 'dangerous animal' in the Act. Highlighting the growing threats posed by wild animals in human habitats, he emphasised the impracticality of the current procedures. He pointed out that due to these constraints, the Forest department had been unable to act swiftly, thereby intensifying the conflict and endangering human lives and livelihoods. He also proposed simplifying the Standard Operating Procedures for eliminating dangerous animals.
The State has also called for declaring wild pigs as vermin in villages identified as hotspots. 'Such a declaration, even if limited to a duration of six months, would greatly facilitate site-specific management of the species in these areas and contribute significantly to mitigate the ongoing human-wildlife conflicts,' the letter states.
The government also renewed its demand for an assistance of ₹620 crore to implement preventive measures to tackle the unfolding crisis.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Juveniles, age of consent and justice: Explaining the wide conviction gap
An analysis of government data in the Supreme Court reveals a stark disparity between the number of juveniles and young adults charged under rape and child sexual abuse laws and the relatively small proportion who are eventually convicted, throwing sharp focus on the ongoing debate over the age of consent and its unintended consequences. According to the Union government's latest submission to the Supreme Court, between 2018 and 2022, only 468 juveniles aged 16-18 were convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, despite more than 4,900 being booked across the country in the same period , a conviction rate of just 9.55%. For charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, just 855 convictions were recorded out of 6,892 cases during the same period , a rate of only 12.4%. The corresponding numbers for young adults aged 18-22 tell a similar story. While 52,471 were arrested under these stringent laws during this period, only 6,093 were convicted under Pocso, a conviction rate of just 11.61%. Of 24,306 arrested between 2018 and 2022 for rape, only 2,585 young adults were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, amounting to just 10.63% . The statistics form part of the Centre's written submissions opposing any move to lower the age of consent under the Pocso Act or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships, telling the top court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. However, the wide gap between the registration of cases and convictions suggests that while these laws aim to safeguard children from sexual exploitation, they may also be pulling large numbers of adolescents and young people (mostly men) into the criminal justice system, often in cases involving consensual relationships that turn adversarial due to family or societal pressure. Convictions and sentencing For juveniles (16-18 years), Pocso convictions rose modestly from 144 in 2018 to 213 in 2022 even as the number of detentions rose from 844 to 1,757, which implies a conviction rate of just 12.12% in 2022. The majority received prison terms of up to 10 years. Life imprisonment was awarded in only 31 cases across five years, and there was no death penalty. For the same group, rape convictions remained flat, ranging from 83 to 110 per year, with over 85% receiving sentences of up to 10 years. Only eight juveniles, tried as adults under the pertinent legal provisions, received life terms during this period. Among young adults in the 18-22 years age group, convictions under Pocso grew from 1,213 in 2018 to 1,312 in 2022. However, even this increase is modest considering the scale of bookings under the Act. While 8,740 persons were apprehended in 2018, 13,068 were arrested in 2022. That translates to conviction rates of 13.88% in 2018 and 10.04% in 2022 under Pocso. Additionally, rape convictions dropped from 620 in 2018 to 476 in 2022, reflecting a 23.23% decline despite higher arrest figures. Life imprisonment was more common in this age group. 773 individuals received life terms for Pocso offences, while 238 did so for rape. A total of 22 young adults were awarded the death penalty over the five years, compared to just one juvenile. These statistics emerge at a time when the Supreme Court is hearing a public interest litigation examining whether the blanket criminalisation of all sexual activity below the age of 18 under the Pocso Act requires re-examination. The law, enacted in 2012, sets the age of consent at 18 and makes even consensual acts between teenagers prosecutable. Senior advocates Indira Jaising and Sidharth Luthra, appearing as amici curiae in the 2012 public interest litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Nipun Saxena, have argued that the mandatory reporting requirement and lack of a close-in-age exception is leading to over-criminalisation, infringing on the autonomy, privacy, and health rights of adolescents, particularly girls. But the Union government has pushed back, telling the court that 'any dilution of the age of consent, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law.' In a recently filed affidavit, It has urged the court to uphold the 'bright-line' age of 18 to deter abuse and exploitation. Numbers suggest a need for nuance Data suggests that many of those convicted are themselves just a few years older than the complainants. The tables submitted by the government highlight that young men aged 18–22 are the most prosecuted group under Pocso, raising concerns that the protective intent of the law is being applied to penalise consensual relationships. For example, in 2022, 213 juveniles (16-18) were convicted under Pocso whereas 1,312 young adults (18-22) were convicted under the same Act -- over six times higher. Rape convictions for 18-22-year-olds (476) were also significantly higher than for juveniles (92). The sentencing trends further bolster the case for a more differentiated approach. A vast majority of both juveniles and young adults received sentences below 10 years, suggesting courts may be exercising discretion when faced with such cases, but only after the accused have undergone lengthy trials and detention. A legal and social dilemma The Centre's firm position against creating a 'close-in-age' exception, such as exempting consensual acts between teens aged 16-18, comes amid growing calls for a calibrated rethink. Several high courts, and even Supreme Court benches in bail and quashing proceedings, have flagged the problem of criminalising teenage love. Yet, the government has maintained that 'loosening age-based protections could open avenues for abuse under the guise of consensual activity,' and that the law must 'act as a strong deterrent… in a society where children, especially girls, are vulnerable to manipulation, coercion and abuse.' At the heart of the debate lies the challenge of balancing protection with autonomy, ensuring minors are not exploited, while also preventing a legal system from punishing consensual and developmental relationships among peers. In her written submissions countering the Centre's stance, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and that increasing it to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase,' stated her submissions, adding the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended. Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals. 'Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious or inter-caste relationships,' she said. 'The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse',' Jaising's submissions added. The senior counsel urged the Supreme Court to read into the impugned legal provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. As the Supreme Court resumes hearing the matter next month, the numbers paint a sobering picture : thousands of adolescents and young adults are caught in the legal net each year, but only a fraction are ultimately held guilty, often after years of litigation. Whether this calls for legislative reform or judicial steps may now be for the court to decide but the data offers compelling reason to confront the unintended consequences of the current regime.
Hindustan Times
4 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
FIR against party leader over ‘A for Akhilesh, B for Babasaheb', Samajwadi Party chief hits back
After an FIR was filed against Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Farhad Alam Gada in Saharanpur district for allegedly teaching children a 'politicised' version of the English alphabet, SP national president Akhilesh Yadav accused the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of being 'anti-education.' Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav has accused the BJP of bein g 'anti-education'. (HT FILE PHOTO) The complaint, filed by Main Singh of Kallarpur Gurjar village at Kotwali Dehat police station, alleged that Farhad Gada had been conducting informal lessons at a so-called 'PDA Pathshala' set up at his home in Ramnagar. The controversy erupted after a video of one such class surfaced on social media. In the footage, schoolchildren—wearing uniforms and reportedly from a private school—were seen being taught alternative alphabet associations such as: A for Akhilesh, B for Babasaheb (Ambedkar), D for Dimple (Yadav) and M for Mulayam Singh Yadav. The complaint also mentioned that comparing Babasaheb Dr BR Ambedkar to Akhilesh and Dimple was an insult to the Dalit icon. According to police officials, the content raised concerns of political indoctrination of minors, prompting the registration of a case under relevant sections, including Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita section 353(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) and section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Farhad Gada, who runs the PDA Pathshala—named after the SP's social justice plank 'Pichda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak' (Backward Classes, Dalits, Minorities) plank—defended the lessons. He claimed the goal was not merely to teach ABCs but to 'educate children about the great men of Samajwadi ideology' and foster political awareness from a young age. Gada also revealed his ambition to expand such schools throughout the district. Taking to the social media platform X, Akhilesh Yadav wrote, 'Even the British did not file an FIR for studying. The anti-education face of the BJP has now been exposed to the public.'
The Hindu
34 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Court closes CBI case against Satyendra Jain after no evidence of illegal gains found
A Delhi court on Monday (August 4, 2025) allowed the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a case related to alleged irregularities in hiring in the Public Works Department (PWD) case against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain after neither corruption not criminal conspiracy was proved against him. Special Judge (PC Act) Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts noted that the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1988. The judge added that after having investigated the matter for about four years, CBI found no criminality or evidence of personal gain, bribery, or any criminal intent or violation of financial rules. 'When CBI could not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy, abuse of power, pecuniary gain, or wrongful loss to the Government Exchequer, and the alleged acts are at most administrative irregularities, no offence under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act or criminal conspiracy is established,' the court said. It added that when the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC Act, 1988, further proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Observing that not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rules warrants invoking the POC Act, the court added that mere neglect of duty or improper exercise of duty alone may not constitute a violation under the POC Act. The case pertains to an FIR lodged on the complaint of the vigilance department in May 2019, in which it was alleged that Mr Jain, the then minister of Public Works Department (PWD) in the Delhi government, had approved the hiring of a 17-member team of consultants for the department through outsourcing thereby, bypassing standard government recruitment procedures. During over four years of investigation, the CBI found that the hiring of professionals was necessary due to urgent departmental needs and that the recruitment process was transparent and competitive. The agency, in its closure report, stated that a transparent recruitment process was followed through a competitive method, and no payments were made beyond prescribed norms and approved limits. Emoluments were neither excessive nor irregular. Therefore, no evidence of corruption, criminal conspiracy, undue favour, or personal gain was found, and a closure report is preferred.
