Now Reading
COVID-19: India Must Act Quickly to Open the Eyes of Its Laws to Exotic Species

COVID-19: India Must Act Quickly to Open the Eyes of Its Laws to Exotic Species

The novel coronavirus outbreak has, among other things, cast in sharp relief one of the downsides of the illegal wildlife trade: the heightened risk of zoonotic spillovers. One important subset of this trade is the import of exotic species as pets.

The terms ‘exotic species’ or ‘exotic pets’ are not defined in Indian law. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules 2016 define ‘pet animals’, but the scope of this term is limited to “dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, rodents of the rat or mice category and captive birds”. As such, this definition excludes many exotic species like turtles, snakes, iguanas, monkeys, etc., which are all commonly imported into India.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 curbs the smuggling and illegal trade in wildlife and its derivatives as one of its primary objectives. The major drawback of this law is that it only extends protection to animals listed under its Schedule, which are mostly animals native to the Indian subcontinent, and doesn’t have exotic species within its purview. This has allowed unrestricted trade to continue, and even those penalties that usually apply to people trading or smuggling scheduled species also don’t apply in these cases.

Last year, customs officials in Chennai apprehended a wildlife smuggler from whom they recovered 12 banner-tailed kangaroo rats, three prairie dogs and one red squirrel. But as these species didn’t fall under the ambits of either the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), he wasn’t arrested, and let off with a small fine.

The export-import policy of the Government of India together with the Customs Act 1962 and Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act 1992 do restrict the import of live animals in India and empower authorities to search, seize, confiscate and deport such animals. However, these laws are also weakened by the absence of features like imprisonment. These laws also don’t prescribe the need to involve wildlife and forest authorities – typically the experts in this domain.


Also read: Could COVID-19 End The Wildlife Trade?


To address these loopholes, the Union environment ministry recently issued an advisory to streamline and formalise the process of importing live exotic animals. The advisory defines exotic species as those mentioned under the appendices of CITES, and prescribes a procedure to import live exotic species into the country.

According to the advisory, an importer needs a licence to import live animals from the Director General of Foreign Trade and a no-objection certificate from the chief wildlife warden of the relevant state. This way, forest and wildlife authorities can stay abreast imports of exotic species. In addition, extant owners of exotic species are required to declare and register their animals within six months of acquiring or importing them. If they get delayed, they will also have to furnish documents related to the animals’ provenance. Finally, the advisory also describes some rules that an importer has to follow when the animals are in captivity soon after they have been imported.

On the flip side, this advisory fails to address many long-standing issues and loopholes.

First off, many exotic species are not listed under CITES. So deriving the definition of exotic species from CITES itself limits the number of species under the advisory, keeping its purview narrow.

Second, the advisory doesn’t at all address the two primary threats from exotic species: turning into invasive species and spreading zoonotic diseases. It doesn’t address the domestic trade in exotic species either.

Third, the advisory doesn’t mention welfare standards for captive facilities. It specifies some rules and procedures but much of it is ambiguous. For example, it prohibits mixing and breeding with indigenous animal species but doesn’t restrict any in-breeding among imported animals, which is a matter of concern.

Finally, as an advisory and not a law, it fails to plug the absence of heavy penalties, including imprisonment. Since the trade in such exotic species involves a lot of money, animal smuggling is likely to continue, with smugglers continuing to walk away after paying fines.


Also read: Meet the Indian Pangolin, an Unlikely Actor in the Coronavirus Arena


The advisory is the first step towards recognising and regulating the import and trade of exotic species in India, and on this count deserves appreciation. But to fully address the issue, the need of the hour is proper legislation or regulation that resolved all of the existing ambiguities – including an all-encompassing definition for exotic species, stringent punishments, higher fines and recognising the threat of invasive species and zoonotic diseases.

Against the backdrop of the novel coronavirus pandemic and its connection to wet markets, exotic species and illegal wildlife trade, it’s high time we either end such problematic practices and  trade or at least regulate them in an effective manner.

Abhishek Chakravarty is an assistant professor at Sai University and a faculty member at the Daksha Fellowship. He specialises in environmental law.

Scroll To Top