With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements: 1. Wild animals are the sole property of the government. 2. When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside. 3. Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Answer: B. Only statement 2 is correct. This relates to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Statement 1 is WRONG. Wild animals are NOT the 'sole property of the government' as a general rule. Under SECTION 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, only SPECIFIED CATEGORIES become 'government property': wild animals hunted contrary to the Act, animals found dead, animal articles, weapons used in offences etc. Animals living freely in the wild are not 'owned' by the government; they are protected wildlife regulated by the government. The framing as 'sole property' is too broad. Statement 2 is CORRECT. Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, a protected species (especially those listed in Schedule I and II) is PROTECTED REGARDLESS OF LOCATION — whether inside a national park / sanctuary / tiger reserve, OR outside protected areas (e.g., on farmland, in a forest patch). Hunting/harming a Schedule I animal anywhere is an offence with equal severity. The protection follows the species, not the territory. Statement 3 is WRONG. Apprehension of danger ALONE is NOT sufficient. SECTION 11 of the Act allows hunting of a protected wild animal only when the CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN is satisfied (after due inquiry) that the animal has become 'dangerous to human life' or is 'so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery'. The decision must be in writing, recording reasons. A mere apprehension is not enough — there must be actual danger and a written authorisation. Source: Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (Sections 11, 39) / MoEFCC.