Kerala’s new bill to amend the Wildlife Protection Act sparks a debate on state rights vs. national conservation. Learn about the vermin declaration, human-animal conflict, and the future of federal environmental governance in India.
Faced with rising and often violent conflicts between humans and animals, the Kerala government has taken a dramatic step. The newly proposed Wild Life Protection (Kerala Amendment) Bill, 2025, challenges the central government’s authority and ignites a fresh debate on who gets to manage India’s wildlife.
But is this a necessary move for public safety, or a risky precedent that could undermine decades of conservation work?
The Crisis Behind the Bill
The driving force behind this amendment is a “painful lived crisis” for many Keralites. In areas where farms and settlements border forests, confrontations with animals like wild boars are common, leading to crop loss, human injury, and even death.
Kerala has repeatedly asked the central government to officially declare species like the wild boar as ‘vermin’, which would strip them of legal protections and allow for controlled culling. However, these requests have been met with silence or denial. This state-versus-centre dissonance is what the new bill seeks to overcome.
What Does the Kerala Amendment Bill Propose?
The bill aims to devolve significant powers from the Union to the State government:
- State-Level Vermin Declaration: The state would gain the power to declare any Schedule II animal (like the wild boar) as ‘vermin’ for specific areas and periods, without needing central approval.
- Emergency Powers for the Chief Warden: The Chief Wildlife Warden would be empowered to order any animal that has severely injured a person to be immediately killed, captured, or translocated.
The Central Debate: State Autonomy vs. National Conservation
Proponents argue this is a essential move for federal autonomy. They contend that the central government’s one-size-fits-all approach fails to address the unique ecological and population pressures in a state like Kerala. The Centre’s power to veto vermin declarations, they say, lacks transparency and timely action.
However, critics warn of a potential conservation crisis. They raise several critical concerns:
- Undermining National Safeguards: Wildlife is on the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution, meaning both central and state governments can legislate on it. However, if state law contradicts central law, it requires Presidential assent to stand. This sets up a major legal hurdle.
- A “Lethal Shortcut”: Critics argue the bill treats the symptom, not the cause. The root of the problem is often “human advance”—the expansion of settlements into former animal buffer zones. Making it easier to kill animals normalizes this conflict instead of addressing its origins.
- Replicating a Flawed System: Simply shifting the “blunt power” of vermin declaration from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram does not solve the core issue of opacity. The bill, as proposed, lacks clear, data-driven thresholds to ensure that non-lethal options are exhausted first.
A Path Forward: Beyond a Binary Fight
The solution may not be a simple choice between central control and state autonomy. A more defensible model would involve:
- Preserving Floors: Upholding non-negotiable, baseline national protections for wildlife.
- Building State Ceilings: Creating clearer, faster, and more transparent state-level procedures for conflict management.
- Devolving Toolkits: Empowering states with resources, funding, and expertise for non-lethal methods like translocation, fencing, and early-warning systems.
- Incentivizing Coexistence: Developing programs that reward communities and states for practices that reduce conflict.
The Bottom Line
Kerala’s bill is a powerful critique of a broken system. Its frustration is real and justified. Yet, the proposed remedy risks replacing one set of problems with another. As India grapples with increasing human-wildlife conflict, the need is for intelligent, cooperative federalism—not a devolution of power that could lead to the abdication of conservation responsibility. The urgency to protect people is real, but so is the obligation to ensure that speed does not become a substitute for reason.
Note The Hindu Editorial