Legal Protection of Endangered Fauna in India: Linking Species Conservation, Habitat Ecology and Wildlife Law

Background: Legal protection of endangered fauna is usually expressed through prohibitions, species schedules, protected-area designations and regulatory decisions. The biological persistence of threatened populations also depends on processes that cross administrative boundaries, including dispersal, seasonal migration, river flow, recruitment, prey availability and habitat connectivity. Aim: This article examines how ecological evidence can inform the application of wildlife and biodiversity law in India without conflating legal status with extinction risk or interpreting administrative activity as a conservation outcome. Methods: A qualitative narrative legal-policy synthesis combines examination of Indian statutes and official regulatory materials with selected peer-reviewed literature on landscape ecology, conservation monitoring, river dolphins, terrestrial mammals, community governance and protected-area effectiveness. Sources were selected for their relevance to the statutory mechanisms, ecological processes and feasibility of measuring the proposed linkages. The analysis is conceptual and does not constitute a systematic review, primary field study or quantitative evaluation of legal interventions. Synthesis: India's Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended, supplies core mechanisms for species protection and protected-area management; biodiversity, environmental and forest-rights legislation contributes distinct but interacting instruments. Ecological evidence indicates that effective protection can require attention to habitat extent and configuration, movement pathways and threats beyond designated reserves. A five-component Species–Habitat–Law Integration Framework is developed around species-risk profiling, habitat and connectivity assessment, threat-specific legal response, participation and coordination, and adaptive monitoring. Illustrative applications address river dolphins and wide-ranging terrestrial mammals. The framework proposes linked biological, administrative and participatory indicators but has not been empirically validated. Conclusion: A structured link between ecological observations, legal authority, enforceable decisions and measurable outcomes may improve the transparency of conservation planning. Its value, feasibility, equity implications and conservation effectiveness require species- and landscape-specific testing, independently assessed indicators and attention to statutory jurisdiction.