‘Use Article 371A carefully’: Nagaland forest official warns against misuse of special provision amid wildlife row

A senior Nagaland Forest Department official has cautioned against what he described as the misuse of Article 371A of the Constitution, saying the special provision must be exercised carefully amid an ongoing standoff between the department and a Chakhesang youth organisation over a wildlife case.

Conservator of Forests (Southern Territorial Circle) K Hukato Chishi described Article 371A as the “backbone” of Nagaland and urged people to understand and use the constitutional safeguard responsibly.

“We are taking Article 371A as our defence in every issue, but we have to use it carefully,” Chishi said while speaking at a Wildlife Week programme organised by the Kohima Forest Division.

Chishi said the special provision was incorporated into the Constitution through the wisdom of Nagaland’s forefathers and cautioned against assuming that it could never be altered or removed.

He said there could be a possibility of the Centre revoking the provision if it was not used properly, without elaborating on the constitutional process involved.

Article 371A provides special safeguards for Nagaland concerning Naga religious or social practices, customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving customary law, and ownership and transfer of land and its resources.

Article 371A, wildlife law at centre of row

Chishi's remarks come amid a dispute between the Forest Department and the Centre Chakhesang Youth Organisation (CCYO) over the detention of Vezhoto Hesuh in connection with an alleged wildlife offence.

The CCYO has invoked customary and traditional rights under Article 371A while opposing the department's action. It has also demanded an inquiry into an alleged demand for Rs 1 lakh for Hesuh's release and launched a non-cooperation movement against the Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department.

The organisation has announced that it will begin indefinite picketing at three Forest Department offices in Phek district from October 12.

The Forest Department, however, has maintained that the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 applies in Nagaland because the state Legislative Assembly adopted the law in 1981. Senior forest officials have said the legislation is intended to protect wildlife resources and does not conflict with the state's constitutional safeguards.

‘Wildlife Act is for conservation’

Chishi also called for greater public awareness of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, saying many people remained unaware of its provisions and the importance of wildlife conservation.

He urged Forest Department officials and frontline staff to familiarise themselves with the legislation and create greater awareness among the public through print and social media.

Range Forest Officer of Chiephobozou Savinuo Kikhi explained the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act in the context of Nagaland and Article 371A.

She said the state Assembly had adopted the Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1981, considering it necessary to conserve and preserve the state's wildlife while protecting the culture and identity of the Naga people.

“The Act is not for the benefit of the department but to protect and preserve the resources of the respective villages and communities, which are gradually becoming extinct,” she said.

Youth participation in conservation stressed

A student from Sazolie College, Kohima, stressed the role of young people in wildlife conservation, saying protection of wildlife could not be left to the Forest Department, scientists and conservation organisations alone.

The student identified habitat loss, deforestation, illegal wildlife trade and climate change as major threats and urged young people to adopt simple conservation measures, including avoiding littering, planting trees, protecting water sources and using social media to spread awareness.

The student cited the conservation of Amur Falcons at Doyang as an example of how local communities, youth, conservation groups and the Forest Department could work together to protect wildlife.

The debate over Article 371A and wildlife law comes as the CCYO prepares to intensify its agitation over the Hesuh case, bringing questions of customary rights, wildlife protection and state law enforcement into sharper focus.