Forest and Wildlife Bills Sent to Subject Committee for Review

Rapid Summary

• Legislation Proposed: Kerala Assembly referred the Kerala Forest (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Wildlife Protection (Kerala Amendment) bill, 2025, to the Subject Committee on Forest, Surroundings and Tourism for further scrutiny.
• Wildlife Protection bill Goals: Aims to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts by empowering the Chief Wildlife warden to act swiftly during incidents involving wild animals attacking people in public or residential areas.
• Provisions in Amendments:

– State goverment can declare certain animals as ‘vermin’ under Schedule II of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
– Bonnet macaque might potentially be downgraded from Schedule I to Schedule II.

• Opposition Concerns:

– Criticized timing as a potential “election stunt” before local body elections.
– Alleged lack of a proper long-term plan for addressing human-wildlife conflicts.- Questioned why similar action wasn’t taken during previous years of governance under Pinarayi Vijayan’s management.

• Legal Contentions:

– Leader of Opposition V.D. Satheesan stated that aspects of law contradict the Central Act and might require Presidential assent.
– Kerala government defended its stance citing legal consultations and rights under Concurrent List subjects to introduce state-specific amendments.

• concerns on Authority Misuse: Expansion of ‘forest officer’ definition in proposed Forest amendment raised fears about misuse; provisions will undergo detailed review per assurances by Forest Minister A.K. Saseendran.

indian Opinion Analysis

The referral of thes Bills highlights Kerala’s proactive approach toward resolving human-wildlife conflicts in light of rising incidents that affect both communities and wildlife conservation efforts. The decision empowers state authorities with more autonomy but raises critical questions about adherence to national laws like the Wildlife (Protection) Act, where harmony between central legislation and state amendments is crucial.

While Opposition skepticism regarding timing deserves consideration-given proximity to elections-the broader issue remains whether these legislative changes could effectively mitigate such complex dynamics without unintended consequences like misuse or excessive downgrading protections for wildlife species such as bonnet macaques.

The expansion in defining ‘forest officer’ also demands careful deliberation since concentration/dispersion of authority could affect operational efficiency or lead to malpractice risks if clarity isn’t enforced. Overall scrutiny via subject committees appears reasonable but warrants balanced execution with adequate input from ecological experts alongside stakeholders representing impacted communities.

Read More