Kerala High Court Declines to Stay Wildlife Rules Amendment Benefiting Actor Mohanlal
The Kerala High Court has refused to issue a stay on the operation of a notification that introduced the Kerala Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2026. This notification permitted renowned film actor Mohanlal to declare the ivory tusks and artefacts in his possession, leading to the issuance of an ownership certificate for these ivory items.
PIL Challenges Notification and Court's Clarification
A bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V M Syam Kumar was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by James Mathew of Kalanjoor in Pathanamthitta. The PIL challenged the notification issued on March 4, which amended the wildlife protection rules. However, the High Court clarified that any declaration made or immunity extended pursuant to this notification shall be subject to the final outcome of the petition.
Background of the Legal Dispute
Earlier, the petitioner, along with another individual, had challenged government orders (GOs) and the issuance of ownership certificates to Mohanlal for two ivory tusks and 13 ivory artefacts in his possession. A division bench had quashed these ownership certificates issued by the state government, along with the GOs that permitted him to declare possession as part of the certification process.
The bench noted that the notifications issued by the state, allowing Mohanlal to submit declarations under Section 40(1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, were not published in the official gazette as mandated under Section 40(4) of the Act. The High Court had further clarified that the state is at liberty to issue a fresh notification under Section 40(4) to confer the immunity envisaged under the provision on persons or classes of persons covered by the statute.
Subsequent Developments and Petitioner's Arguments
Subsequently, the state government issued a fresh notification, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court again. Under the amended rules, the declaration is to be made within 45 days from the date of commencement of the amended rules. This replaced the earlier provision that required such declarations to be made on or before September 30, 1991.
The petitioner challenged the notification and subsequent proceedings, contending that they were contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Vishalakshi Amma vs State of Kerala case. He further argued that the notification is impermissible, as the central government has already prescribed the time limit within which such declarations must be made.
Court's Observations and Future Proceedings
The High Court observed that the state government had acted pursuant to the directions issued by the coordinate bench, as the earlier GOs were not notified in accordance with the law. Noting that the state appeared to have acted bona fide based on the earlier judgment, the High Court declined to stay the operation of the notification.
However, considering the legal issues involved, the court directed the state government to file a detailed affidavit by May 25 and posted the matter for further consideration in June. This decision underscores the ongoing legal scrutiny surrounding wildlife protection laws and celebrity possessions in Kerala.
