Kerala is once again at the heart of a national constitutional debate — this time over wild elephants.For months now, political leaders, farmers’ groups, and legal experts in the State have been asking: can Kerala amend the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 to deal more effectively with human-wildlife conflict?
Some voices say yes; others say no. Recently, two prominent legal mind
offered sharply contrasting views.

T. Asaf Ali, former Director General of Prosecutions, argued that states have every right to amend laws on Concurrent List subjects — with the President’s assent.
On the other side, Adv. Jose J. Charuvil, representing Kerala Independent Farmers’ Association, warned that states cannot simply override a Central law’s core framework or enact laws that directly contradict it.
Both are correct — but only in part. The full constitutional picture is more nuanced.
The Three Lists — and the Power to Legislate.India’s federal system rests on a careful division of law-making power between Parliament and the States. The Constitution’s Seventh Schedule lays this out through three lists:

Union List — for Parliament alone

State List — for State Legislatures

Concurrent List — where both can legislate

Wild animals and birds come under Entry 17B of the Concurrent List. That’s why Parliament enacted the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA).

Now here’s the key point: under Article246, both Parliament and State Assemblies can make laws on Concurrent List subjects. But under Article 254, if a State law clashes with a Central law, the Central law prevails — unless the State obtains Presidential assent under Article 254(2).So yes — as Asaf Ali correctly says — states can pass amendments to WLPA with the President’s assent. This is not unprecedented. Several states have done it with other laws — IPC, CrPC, and various land and environmental statutes.

But There Are Constitutional Boundaries:
However — and this is where Jose J. Charuvil is also right — States cannot use this power to undermine the very heart of a Central law or violate India’s constitutional commitments.

There are several limitations:

No violation of international obligations — Wildlife laws in India flow partly from global treaties like CITES, which Parliament implements under its Union List powers. States cannot legislate in a way that breaches these treaties.
No violation of the basic structure — Courts have made it clear that environmental protection is part of India’s constitutional fabric under Articles 48A and 51A(g).
No violation of Fundamental Rights — Article 21 guarantees the right to life — and this has been interpreted to include a healthy environment. Any State amendment must respect this.

Preserving the conservation core of WLPA — Section 11(2) of WLPA already allows killing or driving away wild animals under licence, to protect life and property. But a State cannot simply gut these safeguards or license indiscriminate killings, as that would violate both the letter and spirit of the Act.

Kerala’s Current Dilemma:

Kerala’s farmers and forest-fringe communities are suffering grievously from increasing wild elephant raids. The State government now wants to amend Section 11(2) to give communities more power to respond to such threats.
But it cannot act unilaterally. It must:

1. Ensure that its amendment does not violate India’s international commitments;
2. Pass the amendment through the Assembly with a clear explanation;

3. Secure Presidential assent under Article 254(2);

4. Demonstrate that the amendment does not undermine the conservation purpose of the WLPA.
The Way Forward:

Kerala does have constitutional space to act — but it is a narrow and carefully regulated space. This is not an issue for mere political posturing. The State must proceed with constitutional discipline, legal precision, and ecological responsibility.The elephant may be a symbol of Kerala’s culture, but it is also a constitutional subject now. The battle is not just over rice fields and forest corridors — it is about the very balance of power in India’s federal structure.If Kerala chooses the right path, it can show the rest of India how to navigate human-wildlife conflict within the four corners of the Constitution.