Yadav, J. -- 1. Constitutional validity of sections 9 and 11 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 is being questioned by the petitioner who claims to be a member of Nath/Sapera community which, as alleged, is deprived to carry out the vocation of snake charming for their livelihood. However, except the occasion of “Nagpanchami” (a traditional worship of snakes or serpents observed by Hindus throughout India, Nepal and other countries where the worship is offered on the fifth day of bright half of lunar month of Shravana, according to the Hindu calendar). The petitioner; however, has failed to bring on record any authentic information as would establish that except ‘snake charming’, the Nath community has no other source of livelihood. Be that as it may. It is urged that the members of said community live in cluster in the remote area adjoining city of Gwalior and are dependent on snake showing for their livelihood. It is urged that the members of community possess high level of indigenous knowledge of wild animals and are “barefoot conservative educators”. It is urged that the reach of the members of this community being there in the society they play vital role in sensitizing people to reptiles. It is contended that age old traditional occupation and vocation by the members of community has been abruptly put to an end by prohibiting the keeping of snakes vide impugned provisions, which besides being violative of fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution, also violates the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, it is the alleged hardship said to be faced by the Sapera Community which is the basis for challenging the constitutional validity of section 9 and section 11 of the Act of 1972.

2. The Union of India, on their turn, has defended the validity. It is urged that despite the enactment to protect wildlife being brought in vogue in the year 1972, it was experienced that more stringent provisions are required to save the wildlife which led the Parliament\ to amend sections 9 &11 of 1972 Act. It is urged that no empirical data has been filed by the petitioner to establish that the only source of livelihood of the Sapera Community is through snake charming. On these contentions, respondent/Union of India seeks dismissal of petition.

3. Respondents/State of Madhya Pradesh and Municipal Corporation, Gwalior (M.P.) join Union of India in support of section 9 and 11.

4. Considered rival submissions.

5. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, was enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows :

1. The rapid decline of India’s wild animals and birds, one of the richest and most varied in the world, has been a cause of grave concern. Some wild animals and birds have already become extinct in this country and others are in the danger of being so. Areas which were once teeming with wild life have become devoid of it and even in Sanctuaries and National Parks the protection afforded to wild life need to be improved. The Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912 (8 of 1912), has become completely outmoded. The existing State laws are not only out-dated but provide punishments which are not commensurate with the offence and the financial benefits which accrue from poaching and trade in wild life produce. Further such laws mainly relate to control of hunting and do not emphasis the other factors which are also prime reasons for the decline of India’s wild life, namely, taxidermy and trade in wild life and products derived therefrom.

2. Having considered the relevant local provisions existing in the States, the government came to the conclusion that these are neither adequate not satisfactory. There is therefore, an urgent need for introducing a comprehensive legislation, which would provide for the protection of wild animals and birds and for all matt