---

📌 The Question:

With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements:

1. Wild animals are the sole property of the government.
2. When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside.
3. Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2
(b) 2 only
(c) 1 and 3
(d) 3 only

---

✅ Correct Answer: (a) 1 and 2

---

🧠 Classroom Explanation:

🔹 Statement 1 — Correct

Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, wild animals (other than vermin) are treated as government property.
A landmark Bombay High Court (2012) judgment clarified that even iconic species like tigers are to be treated as government property for all purposes.
Ownership shifts depending on location:
• Inside National Parks / Sanctuaries → Central Government
• Elsewhere → State Government

---

🔹 Statement 2 — Correct

The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 does not differentiate between protected animals inside or outside Protected Areas.
Once an animal is listed under protection schedules, legal protection follows the animal, not the geography.

This is a classic UPSC conceptual trap — location does not dilute protection.

---

🔹 Statement 3 — Incorrect

Mere apprehension or fear is not sufficient ground for capture or killing.

Under Section 11 of the WLPA, a protected animal can be captured or killed only when:
✔ it has actually become a danger to human life, or
✔ it is diseased or disabled beyond recovery

And even then, only the Chief Wildlife Warden is the competent authority.

---

🔍 Curiosity Raiser:
Why does the law insist on actual danger and not anticipated danger?

👉 Because otherwise, “fear” would become a legal excuse for indiscriminate killing of wildlife.

---

📚 Enrich Notes (Prelims Ready):

• Wildlife protection in India is species-centric, not area-centric
• “Vermin” species can be notified separately
• Section 11 WLPA is exceptional, not routine
• Chief Wildlife Warden is the key authority, not local administration

Common Trap ❌:
➡ “Outside sanctuary = less protection” → Wrong

---

🪶 IAS Monk Whisper:
When law protects the voiceless, fear cannot be its judge.