The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the Forest and Wildlife Department, Chandigarh, in response to a petition filed by tattoo artist Kamaljit Singh seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint lodged against him under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The case stems from an alleged incident of keeping a Rhesus Macaque at his tattoo shop in Sector 35, Chandigarh, and circulating its videos on social media.
Background of the Case
Kamaljit Singh, proprietor of M/s Kamz Inkzone, and his manager were arrested on August 19, 2020, following a complaint dated July 24, 2020, received by the Department of Forest and Wildlife. The complaint alleged that the duo had kept a Rhesus Macaque at the shop and regularly shared videos featuring the animal on social media platforms. Based on this, the Chief Wildlife Warden registered a case under Sections 9, 2(16)(b), 39, and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, which prohibits the possession and trade of protected species.
Petitioner's Arguments
In his petition, filed through advocate Harlove Singh Rajput, Kamaljit Singh argued that no monkey was ever recovered from his shop despite repeated inspections by wildlife authorities. He contended that the complaint was based on conjectures and unverified social media material, without any independent investigation or supporting evidence. The petitioner further alleged that he faced unnecessary harassment despite cooperating fully with the authorities, and that no link had been established between him and the alleged offence under the Wildlife Protection Act.
High Court's Response
The High Court has issued notice to the Forest Department, Chandigarh, seeking its response. The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on August 6. The court will examine whether the complaint and subsequent proceedings should be quashed, given the petitioner's claim of lack of evidence and the absence of the animal in question.
Legal Implications
This case highlights the challenges in prosecuting wildlife offences based solely on social media evidence. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, is a stringent law aimed at conserving endangered species, but its application requires concrete proof of possession or trade. The petitioner's argument that no monkey was ever found on the premises could set a precedent for similar cases where digital evidence is the primary basis for prosecution.
