Maharashtra Forest Department Dismisses Allegations of Wildlife Act Violations Involving Foreign Nationals
Pune/Nagpur, 2nd March 2026: The Maharashtra State Forest Department has officially refuted allegations of dereliction of duty and violations of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, dismissing a recent legal notice as “sweeping, presumptive, and devoid of substantiated material particulars.”
The detailed response, issued on February 25, 2026, by M. Srinivasa Reddy, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Maharashtra, was directed to Adv. Chinmay M. Mijar, who had filed a notice on February 3 on behalf of Pune resident Dr. Avadhut Arun Patki.
The initial notice alleged widespread irregularities, including unauthorized access to rescue sites and violations of immigration and foreign funding laws by foreign nationals associated with wildlife rescue and rehabilitation organizations in the state.
No Wildlife Offenses Found
Following the allegations, the Forest Department conducted a fact-finding inquiry into the concerned rehabilitation and transit treatment facilities. According to the department’s reply, the inquiry found no evidence of illegal hunting, unlawful possession, prohibited transport, or unauthorized handling of wildlife.
The department clarified that the organizations in question operate subject to statutory permissions and regulatory oversight. “Mere reliance upon social media posts, without verified inspection report, seizure, or statutory determination, does not constitute proof of commission of an offence,” the response stated. Access to protected areas and rescue sites by these groups was strictly undertaken pursuant to official authorization and supervision.
Immigration and FCRA Outside Forest Jurisdiction
Addressing claims regarding the presence of foreign nationals, the Chief Wildlife Warden emphasized that the Forest Department does not have jurisdiction over visa, immigration, or Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) compliance.
The letter clarified that such matters strictly fall under the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the FRRO, and other central statutory authorities. The department noted that the mere presence of foreign nationals at state-monitored rescue organizations does not inherently violate wildlife or immigration laws.
Conflict of Interest Claims Rejected
The department also dismissed allegations that entrusting the inquiry to the Pune Territorial Division constituted a conflict of interest. The response noted that administrative fact-finding within the statutory hierarchy is routine, and any divisional inquiry remains subject to review by higher authorities.
In its concluding remarks, the Forest Department warned that threatening criminal proceedings against supervisory authorities without proving deliberate omission or connivance is “legally untenable.”
However, the authorities maintained that if specific, verifiable evidence of statutory violations is presented in the future, it will be examined and acted upon strictly in accordance with the law.
