With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements : 1. Wild animals are the sole property of the government. 2. When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside. 3. Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Correct Option The correct option is 2 only Explanation The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 provides the primary legal framework governing the protection, conservation, and management of wildlife in India, including the status of wild animals as property and the conditions under which protected species may be captured or killed. Statement-wise Analysis - Statement 1 - Incorrect: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, wild animals are not the sole property of the government. Section 2 of the Act defines wild animals as government property only in specific contexts. More precisely, every wild animal specified in Schedules I to IV, when found in any area not being a protected area, is the property of the Central Government. However, wild animals in protected areas are the property of the State Government. Since ownership is divided between Central and State Governments depending on location, the blanket claim that wild animals are the sole property of the government - implying exclusive Central Government ownership - is incorrect. - Statement 2 - Correct: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, a protected wild animal is entitled to legal protection regardless of whether it is found within a designated protected area or outside it. The protection accorded to scheduled species under the Act extends across the entire territory of India and is not geographically restricted to sanctuaries, national parks, or tiger reserves. This principle of uniform territorial protection is a fundamental feature of the Act. - Statement 3 - Incorrect: Mere apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is not sufficient legal ground for its capture or killing under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Act requires that the Chief Wildlife Warden must be satisfied, based on evidence, that a particular wild animal has become dangerous to human life or property, or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery. Only upon such satisfaction can an order for capture or killing be issued. A mere apprehension or anticipatory fear does not meet the legal threshold prescribed under the Act. Key Takeaway: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, protected wild animals enjoy uniform protection across all geographic areas - inside and outside protected zones. However, wild animals are not the sole property of a single authority, and mere apprehension of danger is legally insufficient to authorise capture or killing of a protected species.

IAS 2022 — Environment & Ecology Environment & Ecology

2022mcqhard

With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements :

Wild animals are the sole property of the government.
When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside.
Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

Official previous-year question

Verified 2 Aug 2026.

Options

A1 and 2
B2 only
C1 and 3
D3 only

Did you get this right?

Solution

Correct Option

The correct option is 2 only

Explanation

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 provides the primary legal framework governing the protection, conservation, and management of wildlife in India, including the status of wild animals as property and the conditions under which protected species may be captured or killed.

Statement-wise Analysis

Statement 1 - Incorrect: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, wild animals are not the sole property of the government. Section 2 of the Act defines wild animals as government property only in specific contexts. More precisely, every wild animal specified in Schedules I to IV, when found in any area not being a protected area, is the property of the Central Government. However, wild animals in protected areas are the property of the State Government. Since ownership is divided between Central and State Governments depending on location, the blanket claim that wild animals are the sole property of the government - implying exclusive Central Government ownership - is incorrect.
Statement 2 - Correct: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, a protected wild animal is entitled to legal protection regardless of whether it is found within a designated protected area or outside it. The protection accorded to scheduled species under the Act extends across the entire territory of India and is not geographically restricted to sanctuaries, national parks, or tiger reserves. This principle of uniform territorial protection is a fundamental feature of the Act.
Statement 3 - Incorrect: Mere apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is not sufficient legal ground for its capture or killing under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Act requires that the Chief Wildlife Warden must be satisfied, based on evidence, that a particular wild animal has become dangerous to human life or property, or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery. Only upon such satisfaction can an order for capture or killing be issued. A mere apprehension or anticipatory fear does not meet the legal threshold prescribed under the Act.

Key Takeaway: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, protected wild animals enjoy uniform protection across all geographic areas - inside and outside protected zones. However, wild animals are not the sole property of a single authority, and mere apprehension of danger is legally insufficient to authorise capture or killing of a protected species.

Your note

IAS Environment & Ecology in other years

Environment & Ecology 2026 Environment & Ecology 2025 Environment & Ecology 2024 Environment & Ecology 2023 Environment & Ecology 2021 Environment & Ecology 2020 Environment & Ecology 2019 Environment & Ecology 2018 Environment & Ecology 2017 Environment & Ecology 2016 Environment & Ecology 2015 Environment & Ecology 2014

More IAS Environment & Ecology questions

Consider the following statements about Rhynchostylis retusa (Foxtail orchid): 1. It is an epiphytic orchid. 2. The species is endemic to North-east India. 3. It is the State flower of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

2026medium

Which of the following best explain(s) the rationale for protecting mangrove ecosystems in the context of climate resilience? 1. Mangroves reduce tidal energy and store freshwater, making them ideal sites for paddy cultivation in saline estuarine belts. 2. Their salt-sensitive roots filter seawater, making mangroves key to converting coastal land into freshwater aquaculture zones. 3. By withstanding tidal surges and offering biomass resources, mangroves function both as natural bio-shields and livelihood bases for rural communities. Select the answer using the code given below :

2026medium

Which of the following statements with regard to the arrival of Amur Falcons at Doyang Lake in Nagaland each year from Mongolia is/are correct? 1. It showcases how sustained local conservation efforts can contribute to the arrival and protection of international migratory birds. 2. It reflects the global success of advanced tracking technologies that guide migratory birds back to their stopover sites. 3. It confirms that Amur Falcons have adapted to permanent residency in India due to favourable habitat changes. Select the answer using the code given below :

2026medium

Which one of the following is the first Plan Vivo certified Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) project in India?

2026medium

With respect to the Western Hoolock Gibbons, which of the following statements is/are correct? 1. A Sanctuary in North-east India is home to this ape species listed as Endangered in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. 2. They have specialized brachiation and can easily swing between trees. 3. They possess a strong and heavy build like gorillas, yet are remarkably agile tree climbers. Select the answer using the code given below :

2026medium

View all Environment & Ecology questions

Keep practicing Environment & Ecology

Work through every IAS Environment & Ecology PYQ, year by year.

Browse all Environment & Ecology topics

Correct Option

The correct option is 2 only

Explanation

Statement-wise Analysis

Statement 1 - Incorrect: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, wild animals are not the sole property of the government. Section 2 of the Act defines wild animals as government property only in specific contexts. More precisely, every wild animal specified in Schedules I to IV, when found in any area not being a protected area, is the property of the Central Government. However, wild animals in protected areas are the property of the State Government. Since ownership is divided between Central and State Governments depending on location, the blanket claim that wild animals are the sole property of the government - implying exclusive Central Government ownership - is incorrect.
Statement 2 - Correct: Under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, a protected wild animal is entitled to legal protection regardless of whether it is found within a designated protected area or outside it. The protection accorded to scheduled species under the Act extends across the entire territory of India and is not geographically restricted to sanctuaries, national parks, or tiger reserves. This principle of uniform territorial protection is a fundamental feature of the Act.
Statement 3 - Incorrect: Mere apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is not sufficient legal ground for its capture or killing under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Act requires that the Chief Wildlife Warden must be satisfied, based on evidence, that a particular wild animal has become dangerous to human life or property, or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery. Only upon such satisfaction can an order for capture or killing be issued. A mere apprehension or anticipatory fear does not meet the legal threshold prescribed under the Act.