Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Police action under the Biodiversity Act - The provided sources do not explicitly state that police can take cases under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Instead, enforcement and regulatory actions are primarily carried out by designated authorities such as the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), State Biodiversity Boards, and Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). For example, a case registered under the Forest Act and other environmental laws involved police action, but the Biodiversity Act itself emphasizes regulatory oversight by specialized bodies rather than direct police intervention ["Tenzin Dorjee VS State of J&K through SHO P/S Leh, Ladakh - Jammu and Kashmir"].
Role of authorities and legal framework - The Biological Diversity Act, 2002, establishes a comprehensive framework for regulating access to biological resources, benefit sharing, and conservation. It mandates the formation of Biodiversity Management Committees, Biodiversity Boards, and the NBA to oversee compliance. Non-compliance with these provisions can lead to legal consequences, including actions that might involve law enforcement agencies, especially when illegal activities such as unauthorized collection or trade of biological resources are involved ["CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"], ["CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"].
Enforcement and legal proceedings - Cases involving violations under the Biodiversity Act typically involve investigations by authorities and may lead to prosecution or legal proceedings in courts, as seen in instances where offences under sections of the Act and related laws like the Forest Act are registered and prosecuted through judicial channels ["IND00020331"], ["CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"]. Police may be involved in the investigation and enforcement process when illegal activities such as poaching, illegal trade, or unauthorized collection are detected.
Conclusion - While police can potentially be involved in cases related to violations of the Biodiversity Act, especially where criminal offences such as illegal collection, trade, or poaching are involved, the primary enforcement authority under the Act is specialized bodies like the NBA and State Biodiversity Boards. The Act emphasizes regulatory oversight rather than direct police action, with violations often leading to prosecution through courts with investigation support from law enforcement agencies ["CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"], ["CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"].
References:- ["T. K. ROY vs University of Delhi - Central Information Commission"]- ["Research Foundn For Science VS Union Of India - Supreme Court"]- ["Tenzin Dorjee VS State of J&K through SHO P/S Leh, Ladakh - Jammu and Kashmir"]- ["CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"]- ["CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - National Green Tribunal"]
In India's evolving environmental legal landscape, questions about enforcement mechanisms often arise, especially regarding specialized statutes like the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. A common query is: Whether police can take case under the Biodiversity Act? This issue touches on conservation, sustainable use of biological resources, and the boundaries of law enforcement agencies. Understanding this is crucial for businesses, researchers, and individuals dealing with biological resources to avoid legal pitfalls.
This post explores the Act's framework, police roles, exceptions, and insights from judicial precedents. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Police authorities cannot directly initiate or prosecute cases under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, unless they follow prescribed legal procedures, including obtaining necessary permissions from designated authorities. The Act focuses on regulating access to biological resources, conservation, and equitable benefit-sharing, entrusting enforcement to specialized bodies like the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs), not routine police action. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327
Key points include:- The Act establishes a framework for conservation and sustainable use, with procedures for access and benefit-sharing. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327Sayeed Absar Bidi Works VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1665- Enforcement is assigned to NBA and SBBs, excluding direct police involvement. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327- Violations require adherence to regulatory mechanisms, not standalone police FIRs. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327
Enacted to fulfill India's obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Act conserves biological diversity, regulates access to biological resources, and ensures fair benefit-sharing. Research Foundation For Science, Technology And Ecology VS Ministry Of Agriculture - 1998 Supreme(SC) 1147 It defines 'biological resources' broadly and mandates prior approval for access or commercial utilization. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327Sayeed Absar Bidi Works VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1665
Section 7 prohibits obtaining biological resources for commercial use without SBB approval, while Section 24 requires prior intimation for certain activities. Violations attract penalties under Section 55(2), but prosecution follows the Act's channels. Vishwanath Paper and Boards Ltd. VS State of Uttarakhand - 2016 Supreme(UK) 67
The Act vests powers in NBA (Section 18) for national-level regulation and SBBs for state matters. These bodies handle permissions, monitor compliance, and initiate legal action. Police lack explicit authority for direct enforcement. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327
For instance, Section 50 outlines dispute resolution between authorities, emphasizing institutional handling over police-led probes. Central India AYUSH Drugs Manufacturers Association, c/o. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 1279 The National Green Tribunal (NGT) may oversee appeals or environmental disputes under specific schedules, but not routine Biodiversity Act cases unless they involve substantial environmental questions. Central India AYUSH Drugs Manufacturers Association, c/o. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 1279
Police generally cannot register or prosecute Biodiversity Act cases independently. Any action must align with the Act's procedures, such as coordinating with NBA/SBBs. Direct FIRs without approvals risk being improper or unlawful. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327
However, real-world cases show nuances:- In M.KOTTAIYA vs STATE REP BY - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74261, a case was registered under Sections 7 and 55(2) in Gummidipoondi Forest Range (BDOR No.8/2021), with police investigating after a complaint. This suggests police involvement post-regulatory initiation. M.KOTTAIYA vs STATE REP BY - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74261- TENZIN DORJEE vs STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER noted an FIR (No. 11/2009) at Police Station Leh under related laws, but clarified Biodiversity Act applicability requires specific triggers. TENZIN DORJEE vs STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
Courts emphasize due process: The petitioners were prosecuted by the respondent police for offences under sections 7, 55(2) and 58... but subject to validation. M.KOTTAIYA vs STATE REP BY - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74261
Limited scenarios allow police intervention:- Immediate threats: Police may seize illegal biological resources or apprehend offenders in cases of blatant illegal trade/possession, but actions need subsequent validation by NBA/SBBs. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327- Cognizable offences: Sections 7 and 24 violations are cognizable/non-bailable under Section 55(2), enabling arrests, but within the Act's framework. Vishwanath Paper and Boards Ltd. VS State of Uttarakhand - 2016 Supreme(UK) 67- Coordination required: Police should seek prior approval or directions from authorities. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327
In Vishwanath Paper and Boards Ltd. VS State of Uttarakhand - 2016 Supreme(UK) 67, notices threatening action under Sections 7/24 were issued, but courts restrained prosecution pending compliance, highlighting regulatory primacy. Vishwanath Paper and Boards Ltd. VS State of Uttarakhand - 2016 Supreme(UK) 67 The court held entities must provide info on local resources: The petitioners are bound to provide information on biological resources obtained within Uttarakhand... Vishwanath Paper and Boards Ltd. VS State of Uttarakhand - 2016 Supreme(UK) 67
Courts reinforce specialized enforcement:- CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 255 stresses BMC constitution and compliance, with NBA orders for Union Territories, underscoring administrative over police-led action. CHANDRA BHAL SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA - 2020 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 255- In eco-sensitive areas, like K G GANGADHARAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43817, courts prioritize environmental protection but allow ongoing operations under valid permits, directing surveys without halting via police. K G GANGADHARAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43817- Rakshit Joshi VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 195 (NGT) mandates biodiversity heritage sites and carrying capacity assessments, placing duties on governments, not police. Rakshit Joshi VS State Of Uttarakhand - 2020 Supreme(UK) 195
NGT jurisdiction is limited: If relief sought not affects directly or indirectly environment, Tribunal will not have jurisdiction. Central India AYUSH Drugs Manufacturers Association, c/o. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 1279 This excludes pure Biodiversity Act procedural disputes without environmental impact.
To navigate this:- Coordinate early: Police and stakeholders should liaise with NBA/SBBs before actions. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327- Seek approvals: Businesses accessing resources must obtain prior intimation/permissions. Sayeed Absar Bidi Works VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1665- Training: Impart awareness to enforcement agencies on Act provisions. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327- Appeals: Aggrieved parties can approach High Courts (Section 52) or NGT for environmental issues. Central India AYUSH Drugs Manufacturers Association, c/o. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 1279
Stay compliant with the Biological Diversity Act to support conservation while avoiding enforcement pitfalls. For tailored guidance, consult legal experts.
References:1. Research Foundation For Science, Technology And Ecology VS Ministry Of Agriculture - 1998 Supreme(SC) 1147 – CBD conformity and framework.2. STATE OF KERALA VS T. EASWARANUNNI S/O LAKSHMI KAVU VARASYAR - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1327 – Enforcement mechanisms and police limits.3. Sayeed Absar Bidi Works VS State of U. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1665 – Access procedures.4. Other cases: M.KOTTAIYA vs STATE REP BY - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74261, Vishwanath Paper and Boards Ltd. VS State of Uttarakhand - 2016 Supreme(UK) 67, Central India AYUSH Drugs Manufacturers Association, c/o. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 1279.
#BiodiversityAct #EnvLawIndia #PoliceEnforcement
Commission would not tolerate such atrocities through RTI, commission hopes that the public authority will rise to the occasion and take necessary steps in consultation with their legal officers against such kind of misuses of RTI Act. ... CR Babu as the subordinate office staff to CPIO, DU under Sec 5(4) & 5 of the RTI Act, 2005 to share official information of the Biodiversity Parks of DDA alike other depts./sections of the university. ... If the Commission comes to know of any repetition in the future, it will be cons....
(i) take action to protect the biodiversity of our country in conformity with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and such other Conventions for protection of the biodiversity; ... (ii) challenge the patenting of Basmati rice, if required, in the United States Patent and ... The following prayers are made in the writ petition: ... The petitioners, therefore, pray that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Honble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or the directions of like nature ....
(i) take action to protect the biodiversity of our country in conformity with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and such other Conventions for protection of the biodiversity; ... (ii) challenge the patenting of Basmati rice, if required, in the United States Patent and ... According to the learned Attorney General, the various steps required for the amendment of the Patents Act are also under consideration of the Government. ... The following prayers are made in the writ petition : ... "The petitioners, ther....
Apart from such cases, no pending case or any fresh case shall be considered by the EACs/MoEF or SEACs/SEIAAs from the date of issue of these directions. ... C.I. of Police [2008 (1) KLT 141], declined police protection for extraction of earth from a privately owned property; finding that the right to life under Article 21 includes right to decent environment. ... It is for the Ministry to take all the initiatives in relation to defining the eco-sensitive areas in the Western Ghats region and ....
On this information, a case FIR No. 11/2009 was registered at Police Station Leh, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 15, 16/46, 39-A of Forest Act, Sections 3/7/55 of Act of 2002 and Sections 60, 60-A of WLPA, against the accused. ... Tenzin Dorjee and Ors., pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Leh, (for brevity “Trial Court”) in case FIR No. 11/2009, registered against him at Police Station, Leh, for the commission of offences punishable under S....
On this information, a case FIR No. 11/2009 was registered at Police Station Leh, for the commission of offences Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, are not attracted or made out in this case. ... , WLPA or Act of 2002, will not apply. ... , i.e., Ranbir Penal Code, J&K Wild Life (Protection) Act, Biological Diversity Act and J&K Forest Act, are (2) the persons who shall be required to take the approval of the p style="p....
Based on the above, a case was registered in Gummidipoondi Forest Range in BDOR No.8 of 2021 under section 7 and 55(2) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 . 7. ... Pursuant to which, a complaint was registered against the petitioners for the offences under sections 7, 55(2) and 58 of Biological Diversity Act, 2002 in Crime BDOR No.8 of 2021 and now the case is pending investigation. ... The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were prosecuted by the respondent police for ....
’) threatening to take legal action against them for violation of Sections 7 and 24 of the Act, which is a cognizable and non-bailable offence and is punishable under Section 55(2) of the Act. ... Respondent no.2 sought for the said information and threatened to take legal action in case there is non-compliance of its direction and hence, present writ petitions. ... 9. ... Biodiversity Authority. ... Appeal to National Green Tribunal. - Any person aggrieved by any determination of bene....
In the case of Union Territories, NBA has issued Orders on 31st December 2019 to constitute Union Territory Biodiversity Councils. ... The issue for consideration is the remedial action for non- compliance of provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Biological Diversity Rules, 2004, including constitution of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) as per Section 41 of the Act and maintaining Peoples Bio Diversity Registers ... The Act also contains provision for establis....
In the case of Union Territories, NBA has issued Orders on 31st December 2019 to constitute Union Territory Biodiversity Councils. ... The issue for consideration is the remedial action for non- compliance of provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Biological Diversity Rules, 2004, including constitution of Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) as per Section 41 of the Act and maintaining Peoples Bio Diversity Registers ... The Act also contains provision for establis....
Section 24 provides that any citizen of India or a body corporate, organization or association registered in India intending to undertake any activity referred to in Section 7 shall give prior intimation in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government, to the State Biodiversity Board. The State Biodiversity Fund as per sub-section (2) of Section 32 shall be applied for (c) conservation and promotion of biological resources apart from other purposes as provided in clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e) therein. In case, the petitioners comply with the above directions, the responde....
This Court has, however, been informed that no site has yet been declared as a Biodiversity heritage site under Section 37 of the Biodiversity Act by the State Government. 49. Section 37 of the Biodiversity Act, 2002 reads as under:- 47. Section 36 of the Biodiversity Act reads as under: Central Government to develop National strategies, plans, etc., for conservation, etc., of biological diversity.-
Section 52, enables aggrieved persons to challenge determination of benefit sharing or order of the National Biodiversity Authority or a State Biodiversity Board by filing an appeal to the High Court. However, this provision subsisted, under Section 52A, on 18.10.2010. The B.D. Act with which we are concerned in the present matter, vide its Section 50, provides procedure for settlement of disputes between the State Biodiversity Boards and the National Biodiversity Authority. An appeal can be filed to the Central Government if a dispute is between the State Biodiversity Boards, the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
