For nearly two decades, a haul of tiger bones and skins has been rotting at the Delhi wildlife division, while the case against the accused has been stuck at the Tees Hazari court.
Across the country, lakhs of similar cases pertaining to crimes against wildlife have been ensnared in magistrate courts because of the low priority accorded to these offences.
To remedy the situation, the ministry of environment and forests has now suggested an amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act (1972), which will remove one tier in the cumbersome legal system and reduce delays in deciding wildlife cases.
The amendment proposes that cases involving serious offences - including trading in protected species and their products or trying to manipulate the boundaries of national sanctuaries and tiger reserves - be fasttracked to the sessions court, instead of going through a magistrate's court.
"Wildlife cases, including those against poachers and traders in wildlife products, take 10-12 years to be disposed of through the trial cases," Wildlife Trust of India vicechairman and senior wildlife activist Ashok Kumar said.
He added: "By reducing one tier - the burdened magistrate courts that try all petty crimes - the provision will speed-up trials and ensure the accused are punished."
Activists have pointed out that in several wildlife cases, the seized material either vanishes from government depositories or rots in the long time taken by the courts. "So finally, when the judge does ask to see the seized products as evidence before handing out punishment, the material is not there at all," Kumar explained.
Another modification proposed by the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment bill is imposing stiffer fines for wildlife offences.
The amendment would make trading in critical species, such as the tiger, punishable by a minimum imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs 25 lakh. For a second offence, the fine is hiked up to Rs 50 lakh.
The stiff penalties have drawn mixed reactions with some wildlife activists welcoming it and others expressing doubts over whether the changes can be implemented.
Activist Belinda Wright of the Wildlife Protection Society of India said: "It is important to increase the penalties as the old ones were not a deterrent to those selling tiger parts. The traders make huge profits and the earlier fines were mere pittance.
"But Kumar believes that even the earlier fines were not imposed on the accused by the various courts. "It needs to be a figure that the society will accept and judges also find reasonable," he said.
One proposal in the draft bill which has unanimous approval is the ban on the manufacture of leg traps, which are indiscriminately used by poachers.
Wildlife researcher and activist Jose Louies pointed out that poachers carry any number of leg traps or manufacture them with impunity, as the possession of such an instrument is not an offence.
"By banning the manufacture, all the people carrying or using the leg traps will become liable for punishment," he pointed out.
