Reject Maharashtra’s move to dilute leopard protection, environmentalists write to PM Modi

Mumbai: Environmentalists have strongly opposed the Maharashtra government’s move to seek dilution of legal protection for leopards and have made a fervent appeal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to reject what they described as a “cruel and regressive” proposal.

Activists warned that the proposal, if accepted, could undermine India’s long-standing commitment to wildlife conservation and biodiversity protection. “Human lives matter, but so do the lives of wildlife,” environment watchdog NatConnect Foundation said in its appeal to the Prime Minister, noting that Modi himself has often spoken passionately about protecting India’s natural heritage and biodiversity.

The Maharashtra Cabinet has approved a proposal recommending that the Centre shift the leopard from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, a move aimed at easing the process of dealing with animals involved in human–wildlife conflict.

Forest Minister Ganesh Naik announced in the Legislative Assembly that the state Cabinet cleared the recommendation due to rising leopard numbers and increasing encounters between humans and the big cats in several parts of Maharashtra.

Conservationists, however, argue that weakening protection for the species defeats the very objective of India’s wildlife laws.

In an appeal submitted through the Prime Minister’s public grievance portal, NatConnect Director B N Kumar urged the Prime Minister to reject the proposal and instead encourage stronger forest protection measures.

The government should focus on protecting forests and preventing encroachment into wildlife habitats to reduce conflict between humans and animals. “Diluting legal protection for leopards will send a dangerous signal at a time when wildlife habitats are already under immense pressure,” Kumar said.

He called for a comprehensive forest conservation policy that would increase forest cover while strictly regulating human intrusion into wildlife zones.

The activists also invoked the Prime Minister’s well-known commitment to wildlife conservation, pointing out that India has gained global recognition for initiatives such as Project Tiger and Project Lion. Weakening safeguards for a protected species, they argued, would run counter to that vision.

Environmentalists also pointed out that Maharashtra’s leadership has publicly emphasised the need to balance development with conservation. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has repeatedly said that “economy and ecology go together” and that human–animal conflict should be addressed through thoughtful and community-driven policies.

“The focus should be on protecting forests and natural habitats, not killing wildlife,” said Nandakumar Pawar of Sagar Shakti. He stressed the need to preserve natural forests and buffer zones and remove illegal encroachments while respecting the rights of Adivasi communities who have lived in harmony with forests for generations.

Pawar blamed large-scale destruction of forests under the guise of mining, industrial expansion and infrastructure projects for pushing wildlife closer to human settlements. “Instead of addressing habitat loss, the government is talking about killing voiceless and innocent wildlife,” he said.

Powai-based activist Pamela Cheema echoed the concern, saying that forest loss was a key factor behind rising human–animal conflict. “It is obvious forests are being cleared. This is wrong from every point of view,” she said.

Wildlife enthusiast Milan Bhat pointed to changing land-use patterns, noting that sugarcane cultivation in Maharashtra has reportedly expanded significantly over the past decade. She questioned whether agricultural expansion and human encroachment into forest areas were contributing to increased encounters between people and leopards.

Kharghar-based animal lover Jyoti Nadkarni warned that the proposal could set a dangerous precedent. “With India’s biodiversity already under stress, weakening protection for one species could open the door for similar demands affecting other wildlife,” she said.