Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 May 2026 | 18(5): 28874–28885
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10111.18.5.28874-28885
#10111 | Received 25 August 2025 | Final received 09 March 2026| Finally
accepted 24 March 2026
Legislative and evidentiary
challenges faced by the Indian law enforcement agencies in social media-enabled
wildlife offences
Pradipty Bhardwaj 1,
Jayadevan S. Nair 2 & H.V. Girisha 3
1,2 School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to
be University), Bengaluru, Karnataka 560029, India.
3 Forest Department, Jhansi, Uttar
Pradesh 284001, India.
1 pradipty.bhardwaj@res.christuniversity.in
(corresponding author), 2 jayadevan.nair@christuniversity.in, 3
girishhvifs2004@gmail.com
Abstract: Social media has become a popular
platform for enabling wildlife offences in India. Protected species or their
body parts are openly traded, displayed, and promoted on such platforms in
violation of the law. When enforcement agencies detect such illegal activities
on a larger scale, they aim to disrupt and prosecute the offenders. During this
process, they face challenges while invoking the law, and issues concerning
prosecution. This study aims to explore such challenges through the lens of
enforcement agencies. While there is significant literature on wildlife
offences taking place on social media, the challenge that unfolds after detection
of such activity online from the law and prosecution perspective remains
understudied. Hence, identifying and understanding them is necessary to
implement and to effectively enforce the laws on the ground. This study
primarily utilises a qualitative socio-legal
framework by carrying out inductive thematic analysis on interview data
collected from 25 experts using Atlas.ti software.
The enforcement perspectives or themes were used as foundational empirical
evidence for the doctrinal analysis. The key finding on the legislation side
reveal that the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, does not explicitly address
electronic or social media-facilitated offences, and no express provision
regulates the indirect and unintentional promotion of such content. In relation
to digital evidence, there are gaps in maintaining the chain of custody and
complying with authentication and admissibility criteria. These findings,
combined with others, offer insights into both objective and subjective hurdles
incurred while proceeding in such cases. They signal the need for long-pending
legislative reforms, skill development training on digital evidence handling,
and awareness for effective on-ground enforcement to cope up with the
contemporary challenges.
Keywords: Conservation, digital evidence,
endangered species, illegal wildlife trade, wildlife prosecution, wildlife
trafficking, wildlife law.
Abbreviations: AI—Artificial Intelligence |
BNS—The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 | BSA—The Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 | CITES—Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora | GI-TOC—Global Initiative
Against Transnational Organized Crime | ICCWC—International Consortium on
Combating Wildlife Crime | IFAW—International Fund for Animal Welfare | IT
Act—Information Technology Act, 2000 | IT Rules—The Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), 2021 | LEA—Law
Enforcement Agency | MoEFCC—Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change | SOP—Standard Operating Procedure | TRAFFIC—Trade
Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce | UNODC—United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime | UT—Union Territory | WCCB—Wildlife Crime Control Bureau |
WLPA—Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 | WWF—World Wide Fund for Nature.
Editor: Monesh Tomar Singh,
Wildlife Trust of India, Noida, India. Date
of publication: 26 May 2026 (online & print)
Citation:
Bhardwaj, P., J.S. Nair & H.V. Girisha (2026). Legislative
and evidentiary challenges faced by the Indian law enforcement agencies in
social media-enabled wildlife offences. Journal of Threatened Taxa 18(5): 28874–28885. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10111.18.5.28874-28885
Copyright:
© Bhardwaj et al. 2026.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT
allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any
medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of
publication.
Funding: This research was not funded by any agency.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Pradipty Bhardwaj is currently pursuing a Ph.D. at the School of Law, Christ University. She is known for leading wildlife law training sessions for the forest departments across India. Her work also focuses on analyzing international conservation laws and conducting OSINT analysis on illegal wildlife trafficking networks globally. Dr. Jayadevan S. Nair is a professor and former Dean at the School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru. He teaches Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property Rights, and laws relating to the environment and the entertainment sector. H.V. Girisha, an IFS officer belonging to the 2004 batch (UP Cadre), currently serves as CCF (Bundelkhand), Jhansi. He holds extensive expertise in forest and wildlife conservation, enforcement, and administration. He has also served in WCCB, MoEFCC, GoI, New Delhi. He is presently pursuing a Ph.D. from Amity University, Noida.
Author contribution: PB designed the study, interviewed the participants, analysed the data, and wrote the manuscript. JSN contributed with the legal insights, doctrinal methodology, and supported the writing of the manuscript. HVG helped with interview questions, empirical data collection design, and reviewed the manuscript.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Aayush Chadha, who provided his insights on certain questions on law, and Shankar Prakash Alagesan for constructive comments and suggestions on the paper. We are also grateful to all the participants who made an effort to take time out of their busy schedules to participate in the interview. Finally, we thank Langland Conservation for being a constant source of motivation.
INTRODUCTION
The Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) defines ‘wildlife
crime linked to the Internet’ as a crime facilitated or enabled by information
and communication technology platforms, networks, or applications. It includes
social networking and instant chat platforms within its ambit. The global trend
report indicates that social media is a major player in online trade (Eco-solve
2024), and as of January 2025, there are 491 million active social media user
identities in India (DataReportal 2025). To combat
wildlife crimes, non-governmental organisations like
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Trade Record Analysis of Flora and Fauna in
Commerce (TRAFFIC), and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) came
together and launched the Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online.
According to its 2025 Progress Update, a total of 63.3 million illegal posts
and listings on wildlife were blocked or removed from more than 50 online
platforms between March 2018 and December 2025 (IFAW, TRAFFIC & WWF 2025).
Operation Wildnet, an initiative by India’s nodal
agency, the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) under the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), also
indicates that the internet has become an enabler of wildlife crime. Around
eighty cases were booked between 2017 and 2021 based on intelligence developed
through e-commerce websites, social media platforms, and other online portals
(WCCB 2017, 2019, 2020 & 2021).
The advertisement of wildlife
items online or on social media poses a threat to protected species (Roy &
Kumar 2022). The global reach of such online posts is significant, considering
active engagement and views (Gondhali et al. 2024).
Hence, it is essential to understand and track the intensity and quantify the
scale of such activity (Stringham et al. 2021) for proper enforcement action.
To address this issue, a dedicated framework for online open-source monitoring
of illegal wildlife activities is needed (Pragatheesh
et al. 2022). However, the use of spurious names or terminology to advertise a
wildlife item pose a challenge for
enforcement agencies (Sharma et al. 2018). Additionally, difficulty in
identifying species or distinguishing real from fake increases the complexity
of detection (TRAFFIC 2020). It has also been observed that less attention is
given to smaller and non-charismatic (Fukushima et al. 2021) or lesser-known
species, like the pygmy hog and sea cucumbers. Another concern is that
enforcement officials are not prepared to determine and ascertain the locations
of illegal virtual activities operating across multiple jurisdictions (Wingard
& Pascual 2018). They also perceive that they have a smaller workforce,
resource constraints, and insufficient funding to do their jobs efficiently (Ariffin 2015).
When it comes to the governing
legislation, limited observations are made in the existing literature. It has
been noted that the Indian Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA) and the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) do not specifically cover cyber
wildlife crime (TRAFFIC 2020). There is a need for stringent provisions to
address the sophisticated challenge of wildlife crime taking place online (Rana
& Kumar 2023). According to the best practices on legislative reforms,
nations’ domestic law should also keep up with the latest trends in cybercrime
(Yang 2019). Even the CITES has encouraged its parties to review their national
legislation concerning wildlife crime linked to the internet (CITES
Notification to Parties 2020).
Digital evidence is a fundamental
aspect in prosecuting social media-linked offences. Hence, it is essential to
monitor social media for evidence on wildlife offences, as it provides valuable
information (Haq et al. 2023). Social media posts on
misconduct or anti-wildlife conservation activity can be used as evidence in
the form of images, screenshots, and geo-tagged locations (Bergman et al.
2022). Such images of species or their body parts need to be verified through
morphological examination, which is sometimes challenging even for the experts
(Trail 2021). It is also hard for law enforcement agencies to obtain all the
digital evidence by themselves (TRAFFIC 2019). Technological sophistication in
cyberspace makes it difficult to attribute digital evidence to a user or an
individual (Prasad et al. 2025). Additionally, improper investigation and the
failure to gather reliable digital evidence in online wildlife offences result
in the accused person’s acquittal (Chaurasia 2023a).
There is considerable literature
covering the themes of reporting, identification, detection, monitoring, and
digital evidence. However, the topic remains underexplored from the viewpoint
of the implementation or enforcement side of the legal framework in relation to
wildlife offences on social media from an Indian lens. Therefore, this study
employs a qualitative socio-legal framework (Pound 1910) to explore the law and
prosecution challenges faced by the enforcement agencies from the perspective
of the subject experts. This framework provides a conceptual basis for the
study by exploring the gap between ‘law in books’ and ‘law in action’ while
addressing a social media-enabled wildlife offence. Hence, this present study was taken up based
on the following objectives:
(1) To explore the concerns while invoking the
legal provisions in wildlife offences on social media.
(2) To explore the prosecution challenges faced
by enforcement agencies while addressing social media-enabled wildlife cases.
The present study provides an
understanding of the enforcement challenges in combating social media-enabled
wildlife offences in India from the perspective of legislative frameworks,
which will also serve as the baseline for future research.
METHODOLOGY
This study employed a
semi-structured interview method to gather data on law and prosecution-linked
challenges faced by Indian law enforcement agencies, based on their experiences
and perspectives. While the result has been quantified to highlight the number
of participants corresponding to each of the themes or challenges, a
qualitative approach through a thematic analysis was adopted to gain a better
understanding.
Participants were identified and
selected through a purposive sampling technique, aiming at those directly or
indirectly involved in combating social media-enabled wildlife offence cases or
assisting enforcement agencies. A total of around 15 hours were spent
collecting media reports and open-source information through keywords like
‘cyber,’ ‘wildlife,’ ‘crime,’ ‘offence’ and ‘social media’ for each of the
Indian states and union territories using Google’s Advanced Search feature. As
a result, a total of 257 unique online open-source media links were gathered in
a span of one month in December 2023. Experts quoted in these media
reports, or those who authored literature, were identified and considered for
the interview. Identified experts working in a similar landscape or organisation were excluded to ensure diversification of
information and perspectives. More participants were recruited based on the
suggestions or referrals given by the identified experts. Thereby, a
total of 25 participants were finalised to ensure a
broad representation of the expert group. These participants were from the central
law enforcement agencies (LEAs) (20%), state or union territory (UT) LEAs
(36%), non-governmental organizations (NGO) (12%), law professionals (8%),
academia (12%), and forensic experts (12%), as indicated in Figure 1.
Participants from the central and
state LEAs, forest and police departments, state tiger strike forces, and the
WCCB were included to ensure sample heterogeneity. On achieving thematic
saturation (Guest et al. 2006), no further participants were interviewed, as
the focus was on rich and in-depth information rather than statistical
representation.
It is pertinent to mention that
this article is a specialised component of a larger
research work on law enforcement challenges. Hence, the participants were
interviewed using semi-structured questions that were explicitly developed for
the larger research. The representative sample of open-ended questions specific
to this part of the research, in relation to the law and prosecution challenges
are listed below to provide insights into the framework for inquiry:
(1) In your view, are there any
emerging issues while applying the existing legal framework to social
media-enabled wildlife offences?
(2) Could you describe any
specific concerns that are encountered in relation to digital evidence in
relation to social media wildlife cases?
(3) From your perspective, what
are the common frictions that emerge in the court of law in such cases?
The open-ended questions gave
flexibility to the participants to share their experiences by elaborating on
their responses. The online interview session was conducted for approximately
one hour, which was recorded and transcribed using Google’s features with the
consent of the participants to ensure the accuracy of the data captured in
English. Before the interview, the information sheet was shared with all the
participants, outlining the objectives and other information about the study.
Their consent was formally obtained, and they were also informed about the
confidentiality measures, anonymity, and the right to withdraw at any stage
without any consequences.
Transcripts of interviews were anonymised and imported into the qualitative analysis
software tool Atlas.ti Web (version:
v8.4.0-2024-08-06). The confidential and case-sensitive information that came
up during the discussion was masked and excluded. An inductive thematic
approach (Braun & Clarke 2006) was primarily used during the coding
process. An initial round of familiarisation was
carried out to identify recurring themes and patterns. With constant iteration,
organisation, and comparison, refined themes were
coded, developed, and structured to examine and interpret data. These themes
served as foundational empirical evidence and were synthesised
through a doctrinal analysis using the relevant legislative frameworks. The
in-depth insights into the challenges highlighted by the subject domain experts
were prioritised so that the data presented serves as
an analytical and indicative function rather than a statistical generalisation. Additionally, there is also a likelihood of
potential sampling bias due to the recruitment of publicly prominent and
established experts with exposure to enforcement operations.
FINDINGS
The findings reveal diverse
challenges from the perspective of the domain experts. The themes under the
legislative framework were primarily associated with potential gaps in the
legal provisions on tackling wildlife offences on social media. In relation to
digital evidence, the emerging themes were primarily linked to knowledge,
awareness, concerns and handling protocols. Regarding the broader aspect of
prosecution, the data did not reveal any major challenges, as most participants
believed that social-media cases have not yet proceeded to the trial phase.
However, those participants who had the exposure beyond the pre-trial phase
shared their insights on hurdles to the admissibility of digital evidence.
Therefore, the identified themes on challenges were categorised
under ‘legislative’ and ‘evidentiary’ challenges and are stated hereinafter.
Legislative Challenges
Out of the total 25 participants,
only 16 highlighted the legislative challenges faced by the enforcement
agencies while implementing the law. Among the 16 participants, some shared
more than one challenge based on their area of expertise and knowledge. Figure
2 indicates the list of legislative challenges coded in alphabetical order from
‘A’ to ‘I’, which were highlighted by the participants.
Nine participants (total N = 25)
revealed that the WLPA is unclear or does not have explicit provisions
regarding wildlife offences taking place on social media (indicated as ‘A’).
This was identified as the most prominent challenge, as it was brought forth by
the maximum number of participants. The second major challenge was that the
state forest departments are not authorised under the
IT Act (‘B’), which was brought to the attention by five participants.
Regarding this, one of the participants observed that the forest department
does not have the power to directly access details of the suspect’s social
media handles from the platform service providers and has to go through the
police.
Other challenges underlined by
participants include the absence of an express provision banning promotional
content on social media (‘C’), dependency on the interpretation of indirect
provisions of the WLPA (‘D’), and, to invoke the offence of ‘abetment’ under
WLPA, an offence has to occur (‘E’). Each of these three challenges was
expressed by three participants. Regarding promotional content, one of the
participants expressed frustration, stating, “defense advocates ask us to
show the provision where it is written that you should not advertise wildlife
or its products”. On the offence of ‘abetment’ under Section 52 of the
WLPA, a participant believed that the offence must take place, and it has to be
proved that the offender got motivated from a particular social media video.
Another participant who has tried invoking abetment in at least three of the
cases shared the experience that abetment cannot be merely instigation, but an
actual act of abetment is required for the court to accept.
According to the two
participants, there is no harmonization of the WLPA and the IT Act (‘F’) in the
context of wildlife offences on social media. The participants specified that
the WLPA is a special law and it must be read in conjunction with the IT Act.
It is noteworthy to mention that
the other three challenges were highlighted by a minor set of experts (1
participant) out of the total (N = 25). Regarding the absence of substantive
provisions under the IT Act (‘G’), the participant, based on their extensive
study, asserts, “There is no such provision under the IT Act that can be
fully invoked if a cyber-enabled wildlife offence is happening”. With
respect to another challenge, the academician stressed the need for
harmonization of the WLPA and social media policies (‘H’). Concerning the last challenge, the WLPA
does not specifically govern the spreading of wildlife-related fake or
misinformation unless linked to offences(‘I’). The participant called it an
emerging trend and shared an example of a video of lions entering a particular
jurisdiction that went viral in the region, where it was never reported
historically, and hence created panic in the public.
Evidentiary Challenges
Among the total 25 participants,
24 highlighted the evidence-related challenges faced by the enforcement
agencies. Out of these 24 participants, all of them shared at least more than
one challenge based on their exposure and experience. Figure 3 provides the list
of evidentiary challenges coded in alphabetical order from ‘J’ to ‘R’, as was
highlighted by the participants.
When it comes to evidentiary
challenges, 17 participants out of the total (N = 25) upfront felt that the
forest and wildlife officials lack expertise in identification, collection, and
handling of digital evidence (indicated as ‘J’), hence, need capacity-building
training. Although it does not come under the literal meaning of a challenge,
it became indispensable to include this response, considering that it was
bluntly highlighted by the maximum number of participants.
Concerning specific evidentiary
challenges, the absence or gap in the chain of custody (‘K’) was brought into
focus by 10 participants as a major concern. ‘Chain of custody’ is a legal term
that implies sequential and complete documentation of the custody of the
evidence that was seized in a case (Badiye et al.
2023).
The subsequent three categories
of challenges were interlinked and were brought forth by six participants.
Under these categories, there were overlapping sets of participants, and they
shared similar experiences and observations. Based on their hands-on exposure,
they stated that the focus of the enforcement agency is on the investigation or
seizure of wildlife items or related biological evidence (‘M’). Just having
social media posts in the form of digital evidence is not sufficient for
proving a case (‘L’). Because such digital evidence is often produced or
treated as corroborative evidence in a court of law (‘O’).
There is also another category of
challenge, where six participants (N = 25) have either indicated the absence or
need for a standard operating procedure (SOP) and knowledge to deal with
digital evidence (‘N’), apart from its related legal course of action during
prosecution of a case.
Five participants mentioned that
there is a lack of knowledge and awareness on the Section 65B Certificate (‘P’)
under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Section
63(4) Certificate as per the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)).
Section 63(4) Certificate is a ‘Certificate of Authentication’ (Sonone et al. 2024) that is required to be produced before
the court to ensure the admissibility of digital evidence. On this, one of the
participants observed, “magistrates have refused to even consider the
digital evidence in court, saying that unless you bring in 65B, we are not
going to consider this”.
Another challenge, that the
enforcement agency does not proactively send digital evidence for digital
forensics unless its authenticity is contested by the defence
or directed by the court (‘Q’), was stated by five participants. Lastly, four
participants who had more profound technical knowledge revealed that the
enforcement agency is unaware of the need and lacks knowledge to generate the
hash values (‘R’). The ‘hash value’ is a string of numeric values that
identifies data. It is an electronic fingerprint of digital data that helps to
ensure that the integrity and authenticity of the digital evidence have not
been compromised (Chaurasia 2023b; Supreme Today AI nd).
DISCUSSION
The themes show a list of diverse
and interlinked legislative and evidentiary challenges that are experienced by
the enforcement agencies while implementing the law in social media-enabled
wildlife offences. These findings are discussed below in relation to the
relevant provisions of the law under various heads.
Online Offences
The wildlife offence taking place
by ‘online’ means includes social media within its ambit. The key finding that
the WLPA has no specific provisions relating to social media offence is also
consistent with the legal lacuna that Dr. Karnika
Seth highlighted (TRAFFIC 2020). She stressed the need to bring in amendments
due to the absence of online or cybercrime provisions for wildlife offences.
However, despite the latest parliamentary debates (Lok Sabha Debates 2022) on
the WLPA amendment in 2022 relating to cyber-enabled offences, nothing in line
with the same was included in the final version of the Act. According to the
Wildlife Legislative Guide by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC), a national law should keep up with the dynamic nature of wildlife
crime online (UNODC 2018). It may be done by either automatically including
electronic or distance selling within the meaning of trade or by introducing
specific provisions on trade by electronic means, like the Chinese Wildlife Law
(Wang & Chen 2019). Under the WLPA, the term ‘trade’ is not defined in
terms of native species (listed under the Schedule I, II, and III). The nearest
definition that exists is of a ‘dealer’ as the one who carries out the business
of buying and selling; however, it does not elaborate on the ‘means’ of
carrying out deals. Even though it can be interpreted to infer that it includes
even by means of online or social media platforms, at present, in its current
form, it is not explicit, unless a precedent is set by the court through a
landmark judgment. Hence, it can be said that the law is unclear or not
explicit on this aspect. Precisely, it falls short of the current realities, as
the framers of the WLPA legislation in 1972 did not foresee and expect the
world of the Internet revolution and the unfolding of contemporary
cyber-enabled wildlife offences.
Promotion or Advertising
The insights shared by the
participants that the WLPA does not expressly regulate or restrict the act of
promotion or advertisement of wild animals on social media align with our
assessment. Even though the enforcement can invoke the offence of attempting to
sell under Section 52 read with 44 and 49B of the WLPA for advertisement or
promotional content, the advertiser has room to defend that they were just
sharing information about the species and do not even possess or own them. Such
instances make the investigation and establishment of the legal basis more
difficult in the courts (Wingard & Pascual 2018). Hence, it’s important to
prove that the particular act of promotion was reasonably ‘proximate’ and the
user had ‘clear intention’ to commit such an illegal act. These requirements
for proving the offence of ‘attempt’ were held in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs Mohd. Yakub & Ors.
(1980 AIR 1111). According to the analytical toolkit published by the
International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), ideally, the
existing laws of the countries should prohibit promotional wildlife
advertisements by electronic means (ICCWC 2022). Indian laws do not expressly
prohibit advertising of wildlife (Bhardwaj et al. 2024), and hence, it does not
extend to such acts by electronic means. To put this into perspective, it is
noteworthy to mention that Article 32 of the Chinese Wildlife Law 2022
prohibits the publication of advertisements in relation to the purchase, sale,
and use of wildlife as an offence.
Offence of Abetment
When it comes to the promotional
content on social media, assessing the offence of ‘abetment’ is also relevant.
Samir Sinha, in his Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India, gave an
indication towards using the offence of ‘abetment’ under Section 52 of the WLPA
to address the challenge of illegal advertising of wildlife crime in India
(Sinha 2010). The meaning of ‘abetment’ as prescribed under Section 45 of the
BNS includes, by means of (a) ‘instigation’, (b) ‘engagement’, and (c)
‘aiding’.
Mens rea: ‘Instigation’ must be ‘wilful’ or ‘voluntary’ as per Explanation 1 of Section 45
of the BNS. The act of ‘engagement’ is associated with conspiracy and hence
implies agreeable terms or shared intention. Finally, in terms of ‘aiding’, it
must be ‘intentional.’ Hence, mens rea (guilt state
of mind) is an essential element for the offence of abetment. It is pertinent
to note that the act of promotion may also be unintentional in nature.
Especially, the instances where people are unaware of the legal protection
given to lesser-known species like stag beetles and share such information,
which has the potential to stimulate their indirect and unintentional demand in
the market. In such a case, establishing or proving guilt intent may become
challenging in the court of law while invoking Section 52 of the WLPA for abetment.
Commission of an abetted act: The
participants believed that, to invoke the abetment clause against any person,
an offence has to occur. However, this finding reveals a partial misconception,
as Explanation 2 of Section 46 of the BNS clearly states that, in order to
constitute abetment, it is not a necessary prerequisite for the offence to
occur. Even the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla and others
(1998) 3 SCC has held that abetment by means of ‘instigation’ and ‘engagement’
does not necessitate that the offence should have been committed. However,
abetment through ‘intentional aiding’ requires the actual commission of the
aided act or offence as per the Explanation 2 of Section 45 of the BNS.
Therefore, in the social media-enabled wildlife offences, when there is no
proof of the actual offence taking place on the ground, abetment either through
‘instigation’ or ‘engagement’ can be invoked and has to be backed by guilty
intention.
Active instigation and proximity:
In social media-enabled wildlife offences, the prosecution needs to prove that
there is a direct link between the act committed and the act abetted. Abetment
through ‘instigation’ is not merely tempting to do a forbidden thing, but also
‘actively stimulating’ a person to do it (Ratanlal
& Dhirajlal 2010). The court in the case of
Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC
990) mentioned about the ‘proximate-trigger’ doctrine according to which
there must be a ‘live link’ and ‘proximity’ to a temporal and causal connection
between the offender and the act of abetment.
Hence, to sum it up, while
abetment may be applied in the instances of illegal wildlife posts on social
media, in certain instances, it may pose a challenge in proving before the
court of law. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, it is important to
assess the means of abetment as an act of instigation, engagement, or aiding
through social media to strengthen the prosecution’s arguments.
Fake or Misinformation
Although the emerging trend of
sharing fake or misinformation on wildlife prima facie may appear harmless, it
impacts the attitude and mindset of the people who consume such content on
social media (Tandon 2020). The bare reading of the WLPA shows that it does not
cover anything related to fake or misinformation unless it is linked to other
offences. In relation to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 353(1)(b) prohibits the
circulation and publication of false information by electronic means, but its
scope is limited to the extent when it is used to create fear or alarm among
the public and hence, may be applied to a certain extent in cases relating to
wildlife, too. Recently, in February 2026, the IT Rules 2021 were amended to
include ‘synthetically generated information’ to regulate deepfakes
or artificial intelligence (AI) content in India. The main aim is to move
beyond the ‘safe harbour’ and have proactive
compliance requirements in place to hold social media accountable and
responsible. It deals with ‘made using AI’ kind of disclosure on the part of
users, prominent labelling on the part of social media, and the removal of such
content within three hours of being notified, except for the routine, good
faith, or educational content. Since the amendment is fairly new, its
implementation and effectiveness are yet to be seen.
Information Technology Law
Wildlife offences on social media
are cyber-enabled in nature as they are facilitated by means of online
platforms. The IT Act predominantly lays down provisions for cyber-linked
offences such as phishing, hacking, and identity theft in India. In relation to
cyber-enabled or online content-based offences, it provides for a definite
list, such as the prohibition of offensive messages, obscene material, and
sexually explicit material under its Chapter XI. As this list does not include
violations under other laws, it fails to prohibit violations under the WLPA as
a predicate offence unless there is a violation of other offences under the IT
Act. From a global perspective, a similar pattern has also been identified
(Wingard & Pascual 2018). It is pertinent to mention the provisions of
Section 46 of Kenya’s ‘Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act 2018’ and Section 6
of the Philippines’ Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 prescribes for additional
or aggravated penalties if illegal acts are facilitated by means of the
Internet or digital platforms.
On the procedural aspect, the
observation made by participants that the forest department personnel are not authorised under the IT Act, was accurate. The forest
department believes that they need power to investigate offences when it is
related to social media or internet platforms. While they are authorised to investigate and compel the discovery of
documents and objects under Section 50(8) of the WLPA, their power might appear
limited on the ground. This may be arising from Section 78 of the IT Act, as it
authorises only police not below the rank of
inspector to investigate the offences under the Act. If any other officer apart
from a police officer arrest under the IT Act, they are supposed to hand over
the offender to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the
magistrate having the jurisdiction as per Section 80(2) of the IT Act.
Therefore, owing to these legal mandates and also access to operational
infrastructure such as cyber cells in police stations, even in social
media-enabled wildlife offences, the forest department is expected or bound to
work with the police.
Harmonisation of Laws and Policies
The need for harmonisation
was cited in the context that the laws should complement each other, and the
social media platform policies should also align with such laws. When it comes
to the WLPA and the IT Act, the general review of both laws suggests that there
is no direct convergence between the two. Under Section 56 of the WLPA, the
operation of other laws is not barred, which means the IT Act can be invoked in
wildlife cases. Section 81 of the IT Act is also enabling because it provides
for an overriding effect over other laws. However, the setback is that the IT
Act does not extend to cover the violation of any other laws for the time being
in force, even though it is cyber-enabled, as noted in the earlier paragraph.
As a result, the harmonisation of the two laws
becomes fundamentally at odds. The only way the IT Act links to social
media-enabled wildlife offences is by mandating due diligence compliance
requirements on intermediaries through its 2021 Rules on digital media ethics
code. Regarding the policies of the social media companies, it is important to
note that they have a global presence, and most of the significant ones are
headquartered in the United States. These platforms mainly prioritise
legal compliance in their home countries. As a result, it may or may not match
the expectations of the rules and regulations of the countries where it’s being
used by the people (Gillespie 2018). Therefore, it is obvious that a potential
gap exists between the social media policies framed by foreign-owned companies
and the domestic legislation of India.
Interpretation of the Laws
The findings pointed out that
there is a dependency on interpreting indirect legislative language as a
challenge. This may be stemming from a lack of training, expertise, and
technical legal support. According to the report, only 40% of rangers surveyed
from Asia’s Tiger landscapes received law and regulation training in the past
twelve months (WWF 2022). Another study that was carried out in the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve revealed that 48% of forest
officers are unaware that the institutional training has content on handling
wildlife crime investigation, and 33% have never received such training
(Prakash 2022). An author who carried out a study on Indian legal texts found
that the average length of a legal sentence is 70 words, with a maximum of 404
(Verma 2016). Her findings indicate that, along with
the legal concepts, sentence structure also increases the complexity of
understanding or interpreting legal texts. Therefore, it is a valid concern
that interpreting technical legal provisions is a perplexing task without
receiving proper skill sets through consistent training sessions and exposure
to enforcement activities.
Nature of Digital Evidence
Corroborative and Direct
Evidence: The findings revealed that the focus of the enforcement officials’ is
on ‘physical seizure’ of wildlife items and investigation of the offence. The social media posts are mostly treated as
corroborative evidence in the court of law. This practice may be emerging from
the language of Section 50(1)(c) under the WLPA. As it mandates the seizure of “any
captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy or uncured trophy, or
any specified plant or part or derivative thereof, in respect of which an
offence against this Act appears to have been committed, in the possession of
any person together with any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon used for
committing any such offence”. The literal scope of this provision is
limited and does not extend beyond other types of evidence, which would have
the potential to encapsulate even electronic or digital records. The wildlife
crime investigation handbook also states that the digital evidence is strong,
‘circumstantial’ or ‘supporting’ evidence for proving the guilt of the suspect
(WCCB 2013). It has been observed that the focus of the wildlife protection
laws is often on real-world offences rather than on online activities. As it is
very easy for online offenders to isolate themselves from liability, thus, the
enforcement agency faces difficulty in establishing a legal basis in the court
of law (Wingard & Pascual 2018). Whereas, the general practice in criminal
law cases does not bar enforcement from filing a case based on social media
posts as direct evidence due to their evidentiary value (Sowndharyaa
2024), and also because they are facts all by themselves. This was also seen in
the successful conviction case of S.Ve. Shekher vs. State (2025 SCC OnLine
Mad 6) regarding the derogatory comments made on social media against women
journalists.
Primary and Secondary Evidence:
In social media-enabled wildlife offences, digital evidence can be of a primary
or secondary nature. They can either be in the form of devices that were used
for posting content online or copies of broadcasted posts. Earlier, most of the
digital records were considered secondary evidence. However, the new
legislation, BSA, has expanded the scope of primary evidence under Section 57
and clarified the ambit of secondary evidence under Section 58. Primary digital
or electronic evidence now includes those obtained from: multiple files
(Explanation 4), proper custody (Explanation 5), video recording and broadcasts
(Explanation 6), and storage locations (Explanation 7), in addition to the
original devices. On the other hand, secondary electronic or digital evidence
includes certified copies, produced from mechanical machines, compared copies,
oral or written accounts or descriptions, counterparts, and expert testimony.
Admissibility of Digital Records
63(4) Certificate: Previously,
there was a lack of clarity in the interpretation of the older 65B Certificate
due to jurisprudential ambiguity (Sonone et al.
2024). However, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (AIR 2020 SC
4908) settled the stance that the Certificate is mandatory for the
admissibility of secondary electronic records. This judicial clarification has
now transitioned to a codified, stringent mandate under Section 63(4) of the
new BSA. This new version has also introduced a mandatory hash value
requirement and signature of both the person-in-charge and an expert in the standardised certificate format. The provision also
mandates submission of the Certificate at the time of admission, as compared to
the earlier flexible provision that allowed for the submission of the same even
during the trial phase. Even in the latest case of ABS Tour & Travels vs.
SNV Aviation Pvt Ltd (CS (COMM) 322/2024), the
relevance of new 63(4) was reiterated. As the court noted that the Akasa airline lapsed in filing the mandatory 63(4)
Certificate for the electronic PNR data, an adverse inference was drawn against
them. It is important to understand here that even though the PNR data stored
in a server was primary evidence, the entire airline server cannot be brought
to the courtroom. Hence, to ensure its admissibility while producing its copy,
Certificate 63(4) is mandatory as it serves more like a fitness test or
integrity report, even for producing primary evidence.
Hash Value: The findings on the
unawareness of the need for hash values and the lack of knowledge to generate
them for the digital records are a valid concern, as it plays a significant
role in ensuring the integrity of such evidence. In the case of Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana
and Ors. (CWP No.4554 of 2014), the court has
emphasized the importance of hash value details to confirm that the digital
evidence submitted is an accurate and true representation of the original. It
is of such great significance that even minor alterations in electronic data
can bring a change in the hash value (Kumar et al. 2012). If a wildlife law
enforcement officer is accused by the defence lawyer
of planting incriminating evidence against the suspect, then the hash value can
be recalculated and compared with the original one, and if both match, it would
indicate that no tampering has been done by the enforcement officer (Chaurasia 2023b). With the latest developments, even the
63(4)(c) Certificate template under BSA has a mandatory section on attaching a
hash report with the values and the algorithm (SHA1, SHA256, or MD5) through
which it was obtained.
Chain of Custody: The gaps in the
chain of custody, as noted by the participants in terms of digital evidence,
are a genuine concern and pose a significant challenge in admissibility. It is
important to establish and maintain a chain of custody as it assures the court
that the evidence is authentic, credible, untampered, and has been accessed
only by authorised personnel (Badiye
et al. 2023). Electronic or digital data is more vulnerable and prone to
tampering at all stages of handling, considering the pace of technological
advancement (Kumar 2023). Hence, in a criminal case, the defense would always
tend to challenge or point out a broken chain of custody to create doubts in
the mind of the judge relating to the integrity of evidence. In the case of
Mahesh Kariman Tirki and
Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, With G.N. Saibaba
Vs. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3353: (2024) 2 AIR Bom R
(Cri) 389), which solely rested upon the electronic evidence, the defence argued that there were gaps in establishing the
chain of custody of the seized items. According to them, the confiscated items
that were kept in the malkhana were taken out from
time to time and handled by multiple hands without any documented record of
endorsement and re-sealing in the registry, signalling
tampering. Hence, due to the lack of credibility of the digital evidence, it
eventually led to an acquittal of the suspect.
Although this case relates to tangible digital evidence like laptops and
mobile phones, it highlights the significance and role of the chain of custody
in the admissibility of evidence. Similarly, intangible digital evidence like
photos or social media posts requires a separate logging protocol for
documenting capture, preservation, transfer, and production, along with a hash
value report and 63(4) Certificate, which was observed to be generally lacking.
Opinion of Experts: As was seen
previously, under the BSA, submission of the 63(4) Certificate is mandatory for
the admissibility of digital records. If this Certificate is presented with the
expert signature, the court shall presume under Section 79 that the evidence
record was duly taken by the authorised officer.
Opinion of the examiner of electronic evidence as experts under Section 39 can
be sought if, during the proceedings, the court has to form an opinion on the
information that was transmitted or stored. Therefore, the approach of the
participants not to send digital records for forensic examination unless
contested or directed by the judge in the court is legally sustainable when
such evidences are corroborative. In the instances wherein these digital
records are the sole ground for investigations, there will be a higher burden
to obtain opinions of experts beforehand.
Standard Operating Procedures and
Trainings
The participants were of the view
that there is no SOP for handling digital evidence for wildlife law enforcement
agencies and that there is a need for one. A study also observed that there are
no uniform procedures followed across India (Gupta & Das 2023). The Supreme
Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (AIR 2020 SC 4908) stressed that there is a need
to frame rules, guidelines, and directions regarding data retention,
segregation, chain of custody, preservation, stamping, and record maintenance
relating to digital evidence. At a state level, some enforcement agencies like
the police (Kerala Police 2021) and the Orissa Forest Department (Maharana
2024) have certain manuals or guidelines in place. However, not all the states
and departments likely have access to such handbooks. In December 2023, the
Supreme Court, in the petition Foundation for Media Professionals vs. Union of
India (W.P. (Crl.) No. 395/2022), on model guidelines
for the search and seizure of digital devices, passed an interim order
directing the enforcement agencies to follow CBI’s 2020 Manual. In light of
this petition and the new BSA frameworks, new model guidelines or SOP at the
central and state levels are mandatory and likely underway.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The study shows that the barriers
in combating social media-enabled wildlife crime go beyond the detection and
investigation of such cases. Most of them cannot proceed to the trial phase.
Even if they proceed, there is no successful conviction because of the weak
prosecution. This shows that even if there is a law that prohibits wildlife
offences in India, its enforcement or implementation in relation to social
media-enabled cases remains ineffective due to various legislative and
evidentiary challenges.
At the legislation level, there
is a struggle to identify, interpret, and apply the accurate legal provisions
on such social media-linked wildlife offences. Absence of express prohibition
on social media or online wildlife offences, coupled with higher reliance on
the interpretation of the technical legal provisions are valid impediment. Even
if the provisions are rightly invoked, the battle lies in successfully proving
it before the court of law, which requires a specialised
skill set.
Most of the evidentiary
challenges primarily signalled knowledge gaps,
unawareness and expertise requirements. The admissibility of the social
media-related digital evidence was assessed to be a major catalyst for ensuring
the success of such cases. However, there are insufficient procedural guidance
protocols and trainings are also sidelined and remain under-prioritized.
Therefore, in line with these, the following are some of the recommendations
that may help address the challenges identified in this study.
For the lawmakers, it is
recommended that under the WLPA, wildlife offences which take place by ‘any
means’, whether ‘direct’ or indirect, should also be expressly prohibited to
counter social media or online facilitated activities. Even the act of
‘advertising’, ‘display’, ‘usage’, ‘utility’, and sharing of ‘unscientific or
misinformation’ that stimulates the demand for protected species should also be
regulated, with an exception to educational content disseminated from authorised sources. The scope of Section 50(1)(c) WLPA may
also be broadened to facilitate the seizure of all kinds of evidence, including
digital, to effectively authorise the power to
enforcement agencies.
At the policy level, there needs
to be a dedicated enforcement division across all the states within the forest
and wildlife department, whose capacity could be strategically developed in
relation to the legal and technological skill sets. Such a division can
collaborate and liaise with cyber cells of the state police department and
local prosecutors in social media wildlife cases. A uniform SOP either directed
by the centre or at a state level will act as a
guiding manual for the enforcement agencies as well as for the court
considering the new amendments.
The training component on the law
should include modules on the WLPA, IT Act, IT Rules 2021, and the BSA. These
should not be limited only to the extent of ‘what the law is’ but should also
be supplemented by the practical realities of ‘how to prove’ with insights on
the court procedure. Training may be backed by the subject matter experts and
NGOs. It would be best to have a focused and interagency approach to the
training with the involvement of the identified officers from the forest and
police departments.
As the digital landscape evolves,
complex challenges will continue to emerge. Social media-enabled wildlife
offences are no longer ‘small scale’ given their unprecedented reach.
Considering its magnified gravity and cross-border impact, an interdisciplinary
approach from the perspective of law, enforcement, and prosecution is a
necessity to protect the endangered species.
For figures - - click here for
full PDF
REFERENCES
Ariffin, M. (2015). Enforcement against wildlife crimes in west Malaysia:
the challenges. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management 10(1):
19–26.
Badiye, A., N. Kapoor & R.G. Menezes (2023). Chain of Custody. StatPearls
[Internet] Publishing, Treasure Island (FL). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/
Braun, V. & V. Clarke (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology. 3(2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bergman, J.N., R.T. Buxton, H-Y.
Lin, M. Lenda, K. Attinello,
A.C. Hajdasz, S.A. Rivest,
T.T. Nguyen, S.J. Cooke & J.R. Bennett (2022). Evaluating the benefits and risks of social media for
wildlife conservation. FACETS 7: 360–397. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0112
Bhardwaj, P., J.S. Nair & M.S.
Tomar (2024). A legal analysis of cyber-enabled wildlife offences
in India: a qualitative case study of sea fans (gorgonia
spp.) on YouTube. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy
27(1): 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2024.2396234
Chaurasia, A.K. (2023a). The Google arsenal: empowering wildlife law
enforcement agencies. Wildhub. https://wildhub.community/posts/the-google-arsenal-empowering-wildlife-law-enforcement-agencies.
Accessed on 21.i.2025.
Chaurasia, A.K. (2023b). Digital DNA: The role of hash value in wildlife
criminal justice system. Wildhub. https://wildhub.community/posts/digital-dna-the-role-of-hash-value-in-wildlife-criminal-justice-system.
Accessed on 21.i.2025.
CITES Notification to Parties
(2020). Wildlife crime linked to the
Internet. 2020/031. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2020-031.pdf.
Accessed on 30.xi.2024.
DataReportal (2025). Digital
2025: India. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-india Accessed on
28.ii.2026.
Eco-Solve (2024). Global Trend Report on the Monitoring Online Illegal
Wildlife Trade: Insights from Brazil and South Africa. Global Initiative
Against Transnational Organized Crime, Geneva, Switzerland, 30 pp.
Fukushima, C.S., P. Tricorache, A. Toomes, O.C.
Stringham, E. R. Tellez, W.J. Ripple, G. Peters, R.I. Orenstein, T.Q. Morcatty, S.J. Longhorn, C. Lee, S. Kumschick,
M.A. Freitas, R.V. Duffy, A. Davies, H. Cheung, S.M. Cheyne, J. Bouhuys, J.P. Barreiros, K.A.
Mensah & P. Cardoso (2021).
Challenges and perspectives on tackling illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade.
Biological Conservation 263 (109342). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109342
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of The Internet: platforms, content
moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 279
pp. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029
Gondhali, U., A. Merzon, T. Nunphong, T.Y. Lo, Y.H. Liu & G.A. Petrossian.
(2024). Crime script analysis of the
illegal sales of spiny-tailed lizards on YouTube. Crime Science 13(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-024-00206-w
Guest, G., A. Bunce, & L.
Johnson. (2006). How many
interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field
Methods 18(1): 59–82.
Gupta, S. & M. Das. (2023). Criminal investigation of electronic evidence:
challenges faced with digital forensics. NFSU Journal of Forensic Justice
2(2): 1–16.
Haq, R.U., A. Abdulabad, S. Asgar & J.K. Szabo (2023). Clicks and comments: Representation of wildlife crime
in Pakistan in social media posts. Global Ecology and Conservation 43(e02473).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02473
ICCWC (2022). Wildlife and Forest Crime: Analytical Toolkit. CITES
Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland, Second edition, 74–76pp.
IFAW, TRAFFIC & WWF (2025). Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online: 2024
Progress Update. Accessed on 09.v.2026. www.endwildlifetraffickingonline.org/2025progressupdate
Kerala Police (2021). Standard operating procedure: digital evidence
related to crimes against women and children. https://keralapolice.gov.in/storage/pages/custom/ckFiles/file/7GafuMCjLbFgjBNh8aXz8WhLv2Zqtfczvbi7Uv6m.pdf.
Accessed on 2.iii.2025.
Kumar, K., S. Sofat,
S.K. Jain & N. Aggarwal (2012). Significance of hash value generation in digital
forensic: a case study. International Journal of Engineering Research and
Development 2(5): 64–70.
Kumar, P. (2023). Chain of custody for the integrity of evidence: a
critical examination. The Indian Police Journal 71(3&4): 44–54pp.
Lok Sabha Debate (2022). Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2021. Lok
Sabha Secretariat. Seventeenth Series 20(12): 775–1082. https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1047494/1/lsd_17_09_02-08-2022.pdf
. Accessed 30.xi.2024.
Maharana, S. (2024). Odisha government issues SOP for digital evidence in
wildlife crimes. New Indian Express. https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2024/Aug/26/odisha-government-issues-sop-for-digital-evidence-in-wildlife-crimes
. Accessed on 2.iii.2025.
Pragatheesh A., V. Sharma, C.P. Sharma & H.V. Girisha (2022). Operation Soft Gold – ntegration
of cyber intelligence in curbing illegal Shahtoosh
trade in India. Forensic Science International: Animals and Environments
2(100048). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsiae.2022.100048
Prakash, A.S. (2022). Wildlife crime prevention measures undertaken in a
protected area: a study among conservation stakeholders in the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats (India). PhD Thesis.
Department of Criminology, University of Madras.
Prasad, N., A. Diro,
M. Warren, & M. Fernando (2025). A survey of cyber threat attribution: challenges,
techniques, and future directions, Computers & Security 157(104606).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2025.104606
Pound, R. (1910). Law in books and law in action. American Law
Review 44(1): 12–36.
Roy, D. & V. Kumar (2022). A concise review on wildlife crimes and wildlife
conservation in the region of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Journal of Positive
School Psychology 6(8): 1210–1218.
Rana, A.K. & N. Kumar (2023). Current wildlife crime (Indian scenario): major
challenges and prevention approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 32(5):1473–1491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02577-z
Ratanlal, R. & K.T. Dhirajlal
(2010). The Indian Penal Code, 33rd
edition, LexisNexis. Gurgaon, 678–681 pp.
Sharma C.P., A. Kumar, Vipin, V.
Sharma, B. Singh, G.C. Kumar, S.K. Gupta (2018). Online selling of wildlife part with spurious name: a
serious challenge for wildlife crime enforcement. International Journal of
Legal Medicine 133: 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1795-7
Sinha, S. (2010). Handbook on Wildlife Law Enforcement in India.
TRAFFIC India. New Delhi, 198 pp.
Sonone, S.S., R.K. Gawade, D.M.
Hake & V. Nikhil (2024).
Admissibility of electronic record under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
vis-à-vis judicial interpretation. International Journal of Scientific
Research in Science and Technology 11(16): 36–41.
Sowndharyaa, K.M. (2024). Admissibility of Instagram chats as digital evidence
in relation to Boys Locker Room case. Journal of Legal Research and
Juridical Sciences 3(4): 1135–1147.
Stringham, O.C., A. Toomes, A.M. Kanishka, L. Mitchell, S. Heinrich, J.V. Ross
& P. Cassey (2021). A guide to
using the internet to monitor and quantify the wildlife trade. Conservation
Biology 35(4): 1130–1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13675
Supreme Today AI. nd. Importance
of Hash Value Certificate. https://supremetoday.ai/issue/what-is-the-importance-of-hash-value-certificate.
Accessed on 20.ii.2025.
Tandon, A. (2020). Why do we keep falling for fake news about animals
and what can go wrong?. Mongabay. https://india.mongabay.com/2020/04/why-do-we-keep-falling-for-fake-news-about-animals-and-what-can-go-wrong/.
Accessed on 20.ii.2025.
TRAFFIC (2019). Report on Combating wildlife crime linked to the internet
global trends and China’s experiences. TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK.
TRAFFIC (2020). Newsletter on Wildlife Cybercrime special issue. 32:
28–29. TRAFFIC Post, New Delhi, India.
Trail, P.W. (2021). Morphological species identification of wildlife
forensic evidence based on digital images. Forensic Science International:
Animals and Environments 1(100021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsiae.2021.100021
UNODC (2018). Guide on drafting legislation to combat wildlife
crime. United Nations, Vienna
Verma, J. (2016). Legal English used in Indian law system: a study of
syntactic complexity in Indian acts. International Journal of Education
& Applied Sciences Research 3(4): 01–27. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10699676
Wang X. & Z. Chen (2019). Improvement of the governance mechanism against
wildlife crime linked to the internet in China. Beijing Law Review
10(5): 1225–1238. https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2019.105066
WCCB (2013). A Handbook for Wildlife Crime Investigation
Officers. 1st Edition. Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of India, New Delhi.
WCCB (2017). Report on the Operation Wildnet.
https://wccb.gov.in/Content/SpecialOperations.aspx. Accessed on 16.x.2024.
WCCB (2019). Report on the Operation Wildnet
II. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/Operation%20Wildnet-II%20Report.pdf.
Accessed on 16.x.2024.
WCCB (2020). Report on the Operation Wildnet
III. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/EST/Operation_Wildnet-III_Report.pdf.
Accessed on 16.x.2024.
WCCB (2021). Report on the Operation Wildnet
IV. https://cites.org/sites/default/files/Wildnet%20IV.pdf.
Accessed on 16.x.2024.
Wingard, J. & M. Pascual
(2018). Policy Brief: Catch me if you
can: Legal challenges to illicit wildlife trafficking over the internet. Global
Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Economic Forum (2021). These are the top cybersecurity challenges of
2021. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/01/top-cybersecurity-challenges-of-2021/
. Accessed on 21.i.2025.
WWF (2022). Report of the Life on the frontline of tiger
protection - a survey of the working conditions of patrol rangers employed in
Asia’s tiger landscapes.
Yang, S. (2019). Monograph: Scaling efforts to counter wildlife
trafficking through legislative reforms: a selection of best practices - key
provisions, key innovations and model provisions. United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) guest et and the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly (AIPA).