Wildlife’s burden of delayed justice

India has spent decades strengthening wildlife laws, expanding protected areas, and improving anti-poaching enforcement. Yet one critical link has received comparatively less attention: timely adjudication. Thousands of forest and wildlife cases remain pending before courts across the country. When cases remain unresolved for years, witnesses become difficult to trace, officials are transferred, evidence becomes harder to present, and deterrence can weaken. India does not suffer from a lack of recommendations on this issue. It suffers from a lack of systematic implementation.As far back as 2006, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment, and Forests observed that fast-track courts for quick settlement of wildlife crime cases could contribute significantly to conserving endangered species such as tigers, elephants, and rhinos. The Union environment ministry noted the recommendation for necessary action.The Elephant Task Force, in its 2010 report Gajah: Securing the Future for Elephants in India, recommended fast-track special courts for wildlife offences. The National Wildlife Action Plan 2017-2031 also envisaged fast-track courts for wildlife cases.Following action by the Gauhati High Court, courts in Assam were designated to expedite the disposal of cases under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and other forest laws. Its 2016-17 annual report recorded designation of courts in the district judge cadre as fast-track courts.A committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to examine working conditions of forest frontline staff recommended special judicial mechanisms for environment and forest-related cases. In July 2022, the Ministry communicated the recommendations to states and Union Territories, seeking timely action.Fast-track special courts for rape and POCSO cases were launched in 2019; hundreds are functioning and have disposed of lakhs of cases. Separately, 879 general fast-track courts were functioning across 22 states and UTs as of December 31, 2025.The comparison is institutional, not between the nature or gravity of these offences. India has demonstrated that where categories of cases require specialised and timely adjudication, dedicated judicial capacity can be created. But merely calling a court “fast-track” cannot guarantee speedy justice.That lesson applies directly to wildlife crime. The problem is not pendency alone. The National Wildlife Action Plan itself acknowledged that conviction in wildlife crime cases was very low and inadequate as an effective deterrent. At the same time, difficult cases have resulted in convictions through determined investigation and prosecution by committed forest officers and frontline staff, public prosecutors, the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, police, and other agencies.Wildlife cases may involve animal derivatives, DNA evidence, weapons, electronic records, organised trafficking networks, and offences crossing state or international boundaries. Forest offences may involve technical questions of boundaries and encroachments. Therefore, fast-track courts need better investigation, trained prosecutors, wildlife forensic capacity, and digital case monitoring.In November 2025, in the continuing T N Godavarman Thirumulpad proceedings concerning Corbett Tiger Reserve, the Supreme Court recorded an expert committee recommendation regarding the setting up of fast-track courts and benches for forest and wildlife crimes. This inclusion in an expert committee report considered in a major Supreme Court conservation judgment is significant.National frameworkIndia’s enormously overloaded judiciary does not need an expensive new network of courts. States, in consultation with their respective high courts, could map wildlife and forest case pendency and then designate existing courts or dedicated benches according to caseload, particularly in districts with major protected areas or substantial pendency. Matters within the National Green Tribunal (NGT)’s statutory jurisdiction should remain distinct.I submitted a representation to the Government of Karnataka and the Forest Department in 2024 seeking fast-track courts for forest, environment, and wildlife cases. However, the need clearly extends beyond one state. The idea has travelled from a Parliamentary Standing Committee to expert reports, national policy documents, Assam’s implementation, the July 2022 governmental follow-up, and the 2025 Supreme Court proceedingsThe institutional case has been made repeatedly. What is needed is a coordinated national framework enabling states to translate these recommendations into workable mechanisms, shifting priority from reiteration to implementation.We often invoke the maxim, “Justice delayed is justice denied”. It is worth asking, then, who speaks for a forest destroyed, a tree felled, or a wild animal killed when the case concerning that offence waits for years. Plants and animals cannot approach a court, raise their voices, or cast a vote. Their protection depends on institutions speaking and acting for them.Conservation needs strong laws. But strong laws also need timely justice.(The writer is a wildlife conservationist)

Source: Deccan Herald