INTRODUCTION:
In ancient times, nature was treated with great respect because people clearly understood that the depletion of natural resources would directly affect human life[1]. Humans believed that they were a part of nature itself, not separate from it. There was a sense of balance and restraint in their interaction with nature, and it was never viewed as a source of economic or commercial profit. People recognised that their survival and well-being were closely connected to the health of the natural environment.
However, this relationship between humans and nature has changed drastically in the modern era. Nature is no longer seen merely as a life-support system but has increasingly been treated as an economic resource. Animal- and plant-based articles have acquired significant monetary value, leading to their excessive and often unnecessary exploitation. This issue has become particularly significant in India, where biodiversity is extremely rich but vulnerable to commercial exploitation. Consequently, the government has enacted several environmental and wildlife protection laws, such as the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, the Indian Forest Act 1927, and the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, to regulate the use of natural resources and protect ecological balance.
ANIMAL -BASED ARTICLES
Animal-based articles refer to products wholly or partially derived from animals or animal body parts. Under Section 2(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972,[2] The term “animal article” includes any article made from any captive or wild animal, other than vermin, and includes an article or object in which the whole or any part of such animal has been used. They include fur, leather, ivory, horns, bones, feathers, and nails, which are commonly used in traditional medicines and cosmetic products. For instance, snake venom is used in the preparation of anti-venom medicines to treat snakebite victims, and beeswax is widely used in lip balms and skin-care products for its protective and moisturising properties.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act further classifies animals under different schedules based on the level of protection required. Species listed under Schedule I and Schedule II[3] receive the highest level of protection, and any trade or possession of articles derived from such animals is strictly prohibited except under limited legal exceptions.
PLANT-BASED ARTICLES
In India, the extraction and use of forest produce are regulated under statutes such as the Indian Forest Act 1927 and the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, which aim to prevent deforestation and ensure sustainable management of forest resources
In the present era, animal- and plant-based articles are no longer produced mainly to meet basic human needs. Instead, they cater to consumer demand, luxury markets. This shift from necessity to profit is a key reason for legal intervention.
WHY NATURE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A PRODUCT
Nature is not a product that can be recreated or replaced, nor is it merely a raw material for industrial production. It is a limited and finite resource that must be used with care and responsibility. Animals and plants form an essential part of nature, and animals, in particular, are living beings capable of experiencing pain, fear, and suffering. The large-scale cutting of plants and trees for economic profit leads to deforestation, soil erosion, and a reduction in soil fertility, which severely affects ecological balance.
Environmental protection in India is also supported by constitutional provisions. Article 48A of the Constitution of India directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. Similarly, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to protect the natural environment and show compassion for living creatures. Furthermore, in the plethora of cases T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India[4],Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja[5] the honourable Supreme Court has stated that right to a healthy environment has been recognised as part of the right to life under Article 21.
MAJOR INCIDENTS THAT TRIGGERED LEGAL RESTRICTIONS
Several real-life incidents[6] exposed the harmful consequences of commercial exploitation of animals and plants, leading to strict legal restrictions in India. One major example is the ivory trade[7], where elephants were continuously killed for their tusks to make ornaments and decorative items. Due to a sharp decline in elephant populations, the government imposed a complete ban on ivory trade[8], even if it was claimed to be for traditional or customary use. This step was taken to prevent extinction caused by profit-driven exploitation.
The over-exploitation of forest produce and medicinal plants also prompted restrictions. Illegal harvesting for commercial gain reduced forest cover and threatened biodiversity, leading to stricter controls under forest conservation laws. These real-life incidents and judicial responses clearly demonstrate that when animals and plants are exploited for economic profit, regulation alone is insufficient, and legal prohibition becomes necessary to prevent irreversible environmental damage.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING ANIMAL AND PLANT-BASED ARTICLES
Environmental and wildlife laws are based on a precautionary approach that prioritises protection over exploitation. Products derived from endangered species are strictly prohibited, regardless of cultural, traditional, or economic justifications. In the case of other animal- and plant-based products, the law regulates their use through licensing systems, quotas, transport restrictions, and continuous monitoring. Any illegal possession, trade, or processing attracts severe penalties, including confiscation of goods and imprisonment.
The objective of this legal framework is not to completely disconnect humans from nature, but to ensure that natural resources are used within ecological limits. However, where commercial use causes cruelty to animals or leads to irreversible environmental damage, prohibition becomes the most effective legal measure. In such situations, the law clearly places ecological survival above economic convenience.
TRADITION, LIVELIHOOD, AND THE LIMITS OF LAW
Opposition to prohibition is often based on arguments of tradition and livelihood. Historically, communities relied on animals and plants for survival, but such use was limited in scale and necessity-driven. In the modern era, commercialisation has transformed these practices into profit-oriented activities. What was once cultural or customary use has now turned into large-scale exploitation.
While the law acknowledges traditions and livelihood concerns, it does not permit them to justify animal cruelty or environmental destruction. Traditions must evolve with changing social and ecological conditions. Although livelihood protection is important, it cannot override the need to safeguard animals from suffering or to preserve ecosystems. Exploitative practices must be replaced with sustainable and ethical alternatives.
CHALLENGES IN ENFORCEMENT
- High commercial profits from illegal animal and plant products encourage continued exploitation.
- Organised smuggling networks operate across regions and borders, making enforcement difficult.
- Weak monitoring in forest and remote areas allows illegal activities to go undetected.
- Low public awareness about environmental and wildlife laws reduces social accountability.
- Slow legal processes and low conviction rates fail to create strong deterrence.
ADVANCEMENTS & REGULATION TO BE IMPLEMENTED:
The future of environmental protection lies in reducing dependence on animal- and plant-based articles, particularly where alternatives are available. Advances in technology have made synthetic materials, plant-based substitutes, and cruelty-free products increasingly accessible. Various policies and conservation programmes have also contributed to positive outcomes. For example, the National Wildlife Action Plan[9] and initiatives such as Project Tiger[10] have significantly improved wildlife conservation, as reflected in the All India Tiger Estimation Report, which recorded an increase in the tiger population to 3,167 in 2022.
While regulation may be adequate in limited situations, activities that inherently involve cruelty or cause irreversible environmental damage must be completely prohibited. Sustainable development does not mean unlimited use of resources; it requires recognising ecological limits and acting responsibly.
CONCLUSION:
The use of animals and plants has changed from being necessary for survival to being driven mainly by profit. This change has caused serious harm to animals, forests, and the environment. Practices that were once limited and essential have now become large-scale commercial activities that damage nature. Therefore, banning animal- and plant-based articles is not just a legal decision but also an ethical and environmental need. The law must intervene when profit harms life and ecological balance. Protecting animals and plants preserves the environment, moral values, and the future, making prohibition the most effective safeguard.
Author(s) Name: Vangavolu. Sai Sruthi (KL University)
References:
[1] P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India (5th edn, LexisNexis 2019).
[2] Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, s 2(2).
[3] Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, Schedule I and II (India).
[4] T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267.
[5] Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja Civil Appeal No. 5387 of 2014.
[6] Indian Handicrafts Emporium v Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 589, Centre for Environmental Law WWF India v Union of India1998(9)SCC 623, State of Bihar v Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655.
[7] India State of Forest Report 2023 (Forest Survey of India) https://fsi.nic.in/uploads/isfr2023/isfr_book_eng-vol-1_2023.
[8] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
[9] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, National Wildlife Action Plan (2017–2031) (Government of India 2017).
[10] National Tiger Conservation Authority, Status of Tigers, Co-predators and Prey in India 2022 (Government of India 2023).