The National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) “Crime in India” statistics suggest that wildlife crime in the country is on a steady decline. According to the NCRB, cases registered by the police under the Wild Life (Protection) Act (WLPA), 1972, dropped from 770 in 2014 to 526 in 2023 (see Figure 1). But any conservationist on the ground knows this does not present the full picture.

The reality is that we are viewing India’s wildlife crime through a keyhole. While crime statistics reflect governance and justice performance, they are not meant to measure wildlife conservation. Moreover, since the forest departments of States and Union Territories have primary jurisdiction over wildlife offences, their cases do not fall within the scope of NCRB reporting.

For instance, one RTI response revealed that between January 2020 and July 2023, Tamil Nadu alone registered 155 wildlife crime cases, yet none of these appear in the NCRB data. This discrepancy highlights a significant data gap that has created a systemic blind spot in our understanding of wildlife crime in India.

Without a unified database that collates cases from both police and forest departments, researchers, policymakers, and journalists are left guessing on the true scale and nature of wildlife crime in one of the world’s most biodiverse nations. It is also important to note that the illegal market-based wildlife trade is valued at about $20 billion (approximately Rs.1.79 lakh crore), making it the fourth most lucrative criminal enterprise in the world, according to the UN. 

A glimpse into the data we have

Since 2014, the NCRB’s “Crime in India” statistics have included a chapter on “Environment Related Offences”, offering the only publicly available dataset on wildlife crime. While this is a major step forward, the data also reveal notable gaps. Between 2014 and 2023, police registered 7,032 wildlife crime cases nationwide—but over half (54 per cent) came from just two States: Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. This imbalance raises key questions: are these States more active in enforcement, or is the difference due to how cases are reported and coordinated with forest departments? Exploring these factors could offer valuable lessons in strengthening wildlife crime enforcement across India.

In contrast, States with immense forest cover and rich biodiversity—such as those in the north-eastern region, the Western Ghats, or the Eastern Ghats—often report wildlife crime cases either in double or single digits (see Figure 2). This low reporting is particularly glaring for the Eastern Ghats (spanning Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana) and the north-eastern States (Mizoram, Tripura, Manipur, and Nagaland), regions that are global hubs for the trafficking of pangolins (the world’s most trafficked mammal). Despite frequent seizures of these species by Central agencies like the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the local police records in these States rarely reflect the scale of this organised trade, indicating that enforcement remains largely siloed within forest departments or is going unrecorded. 

Trends and gaps in police enforcement

Despite its limitations, the NCRB data offer some insights into how the police handle the cases that do come their way. The police show efficiency, with an 84 per cent charge-sheeting rate and only 33 per cent of the cases pending investigation. This suggests that once a wildlife case enters the police records, it is usually processed and sent to court reasonably quickly.

However, the bottleneck shifts to the judiciary. The court pendency rate for these cases stands at a staggering 92 per cent. On an average, nearly 3,000 wildlife cases remain pending trial each year. When trials do conclude, the conviction rate hovers around 62 per cent. This means nearly 4 out of every 10 cases end in acquittal or discharge.

While a discharge means the case cannot proceed to trial due to insufficient initial evidence against the accused, an acquittal means the accused is found not guilty after a full trial.

The “nature” of the wildlife crime remains unknown

One of the most critical flaws in the current reporting system is the lack of granularity. The NCRB lumps all violations under the broad header of the WLPA. This tells us a crime occurred, but it does not tell us what happened. The nature of the offence remains unclear—whether it involved hunting a tiger, smuggling pangolin scales, uprooting specified plants, or merely entering a Protected Area without authorisation.

In criminal law, the “nature of crime” distinguishes between specific offences such as murder, rape, theft, assault, or fraud. In the same way, the nature of wildlife crime should be defined by the method involved, whether it is hunting, uprooting, illegal possession, or illegal trade.

Without this level of detail, the current data provide little value for conservation planning or enforcement. Simply knowing that 500 wildlife crimes occurred is not useful for research or policy, because the strategies needed to address different types of wildlife crime vary widely. It is equally important to record the species involved, as this specificity helps us understand the true nature and extent of wildlife crime in India.

The mandate for centralisation

The dearth of information is not due to a lack of a legal framework. Section 38Z(1)(i) of the WLPA explicitly mandates the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) to establish a centralised wildlife crime data bank. Yet, even after the 2007 amendment to the WLPA that established the WCCB, no such public database exists.

Parliamentarians frequently demand wildlife crime statistics in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Over 950 such questions have been raised, forcing the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to rely on ad hoc compilations each time. NCRB statistics exclude State Forest Department cases entirely, while the MoEFCC’s compilations on parliamentary questions fail to capture even the police-registered data that do exist.

Citizens and journalists are forced to file RTI requests to get basic answers. Most State Forest Department websites lack any dedicated section for wildlife crime statistics. Only a few States and Union Territories, including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, publish WLPA case numbers in their annual reports or forest statistics.

The likely reason State Forest Departments are unable to compile data is the absence of a digital crime data management system similar to the police departments’ Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS). CCTNS functions as a catalyst for compiling and sharing crime data with State Crime Records Bureaus and the NCRB.

In this context, Wildlife Trust of India’s (WTI) Hostile Activity Watch Kernel (HAWK) offers a viable solution for forest departments of States and Union Territories to collate and manage wildlife crime data. States such as Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Odisha have already rolled out HAWK as their wildlife crime management system.

Some wildlife conservation organisations, notably the Wildlife Protection Society of India (WPSI), have maintained statistics of tiger and leopard poaching since 1994. However, these data are largely derived from publicly available sources, most likely news media reports of poaching incidents. As a result, they may not accurately reflect the true extent of poaching of these species, and hence relying solely on them can provide an incomplete picture.

Even data from other agencies are fragmented. The DRI publishes information on the seizures it makes, which includes information on wildlife seizure. However, Customs does not maintain a similar public database and often relies on press releases or social media to announce major busts at ports of entry. Since these seizures are ultimately handed over to police or forest officials, they should ideally be part of a unified national wildlife crime record.

Moving forward

Relying solely on police data is like assessing India’s economy through agriculture alone. Making wildlife crime data public would turn fragmented records into actionable insight, strengthening enforcement, planning, and accountability. A centralised database led by the WCCB that integrates police and forest department data could finally provide a complete national picture. When data on what offences occur, where they happen, and which species are affected is openly shared, agencies can target resources better, researchers and civil society can spot emerging threats, and citizens and legislators can scrutinise whether laws and institutions are actually working.

In a context where illegal wildlife trade is linked to organised crime, biodiversity loss, and even zoonotic disease risks, hiding or siloing this information weakens governance, while transparency pushes the system towards more data-driven, coordinated, and trustworthy wildlife protection. The WCCB is in the best position to address this gap. By leading the effort to standardise and compile data from both State Police and Forest Departments, the bureau could create a publicly accessible “Centralised Wildlife Crime Statistics” report, similar to the NCRB’s “Crime in India”, which reflects both the scale and the nature of wildlife crime.

Just as State and Union Territory police share crime data with the NCRB, forest departments should regularly share wildlife crime statistics with the WCCB. Until such a system is in place, our understanding of the threats facing India’s wildlife will remain incomplete. We have the technology, the legal mandate, and the need. What remains is the willingness to share data and ensure transparency.

Prakash is Assistant Manager at the Wildlife Crime Control Division, Wildlife Trust of India.

Also Read | Dwarka forest and the misunderstood politics of deemed forests and invasive species

Also Read | Small pugmarks, giant leaps