How Salman Khan’s 1998 Blackbuck Poaching Case Violated Section 9/51 of Wildlife Protection Act 1972

Summary

A high-profile event involving numerous people, including a well-known movie actor, suspected of hunting and killing blackbucks on private land close to Jodhpur in October 1998 brought India’s wildlife regulations under close examination.

This story underlined not just the situation of a protected species but also the strength and value of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Analyzing how this occurrence violated particular Act clauses—namely Section 9 and Section 51—helps us to grasp the legal system meant to protect India’s wildlife and discourage next violations.

The Wildlife Protection Act 1972

The Wild Life (Protection) Act was passed to protect wild animals, birds, and plants so guaranteeing ecological and environmental security. Act Chapter III addresses expressly the killing of wild animals.

Section 9, “Prohibition of hunting,” makes it abundantly evident that no one may hunt any wild animal mentioned in Schedules I and II of the Act except under strictly limited circumstances including scientific research or management and only with a valid authorization.

Section 51 specifies the fines and punishments for any Act breach, including those pertaining to hunting, therefore imposing both fines and incarceration as deterrents.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Blackbuck and Its Protection Situation

Scheduling I of the Act lists the blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), the highest degree of protection set out for those species most under danger. Under Schedule I, hunting, killing, or capturing of the animal is totally forbidden unless the Chief Wildlife Warden grants a special permission based on past consent of the Central Government.

Any illegal damage to blackbucks is a major violation under Section 9 since this schedule reflects the animal’s vulnerable situation and the great urgency to stop its extinction.

The 1998 Poaching Event

A group headed by a well-known actor visited a private estate close to Kankani hamlet in Jodhpur district on October 1, 1998, late night. Two male blackbucks were supposedly killed after the group allegedly pursued and fired at wild antelopes during a festive celebration.

Local media first covered the occurrence before wildlife officials learned about it. Although first police reports focused on wildlife infractions, pressure from activists and conservation organizations resulted in official charges under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

Breaking Section 9

“No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I and II except as provided under section 11 and section 12,” Section 9 of the Act says. Hunting is either killing, catching, or trying to kill any wild animal.

Under Section 12 the accused neither carried out the activity under any exception in Section 11 nor possessed any permit. They immediately broke the absolute ban in Section 9 by firing at and killing two Schedule I blackbucks, therefore transgressing the main objectives of the Act.

Section 51’s penalties

Section 51 of the Act specifies penalty for breach of its terms. Any individual who violates Section 9 “must be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to twenty‐25 thousand rupees, or with both,” the original unamended language said.

Later changes raised fines for Schedule I species, but the same punishment structure applied because the incident took place in 1998. Reflecting the legislative goal to impose severe penalties for damaging the most protected wildlife, anyone found guilty faced up to three years in prison, a large fine, or both.

Legal Interpretations and Procedures

After protracted litigation spanning more than ten years, trial courts first cleared the accused in 2006 citing inadequate proof. Emphasizing that public individuals are not above the law, the Rajasistan High Court in 2018 convicted the main accused under Section 9 and sentenced under Section 51 on appeal.

The Court decided that a prima facie violation occurred from not getting a valid permission and shooting a Schedule I species. The Supreme Court maintained this view, thereby supporting the strict interpretation of Section 9 infractions that under Section 51 they carry mandatory consequences.

implications for environmental protection
This case set a precedent whereby even powerful people might be held responsible for wildlife crimes. It underlined the need of implementing Schedule I protections and the force of Section 51 sanctions in discouraging next crimes.

Conservationists cite this belief as proof that India’s judicial system can uphold justice and act as a warning to possible violators. The drawn-out judicial process also underlined the need of speedy prosecution of wildlife offenses to guarantee prompt justice and improve deterrent.

Conclusion

Still one of the most important wildlife crime cases in India, the 1998 blackbuck poaching episode By hunting Schedule I blackbucks without a permission, it clearly violates Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and calls for a related invocation of Section 51 penalties.

The final conviction confirmed that legislative protections for India’s wildlife are enforceable, independent of the offender’s position, therefore strengthening the conservation goals of the Act. The strong implementation of these clauses forms the pillar in protecting threatened species as India keeps working to preserve biodiversity.