Kochi: The Kerala High Court On Friday, said that the Forest Department’s ownership certificates for actor Mohanlal’s ivory artifacts were not valid and could not be enforced in court.
The Division Bench, made up of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, said that the government had let Mohanlal declare the ivory goods, but the process did not follow the rules set out in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
The court did say, nevertheless, that the state government can publish a new notice under Section 40(4) of the Act if it wants to let the actor keep the ivory items legitimately.
Petition Against Ownership
The decision was made in response to a plea from Paulose K.A. of Eloor, Kochi, who disagreed with the notices that the state government sent out under Section 40(4). These notices let the superstar show two pairs of ivory tusks and 13 ivory artifacts to the Chief Wildlife Warden. This led to the granting of ownership certificates under Section 42 of the Act.
The petitioner said that the Forest Department had wrongly granted the certifications even though there were still criminal cases going on about the ivory products in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Perumbavoor.
The court sees that the statutory process was not followed.
After hearing from both sides, the court looked at whether the government notifications met the legal requirements. The Bench noted that even though the actor had followed the order to reveal his ivory possessions, the notifications had not been published in the official gazette, which is a required step under the Act.
The court said that the government’s claim that other forms of publicity were enough was not true:
“We’re sorry, but we can’t agree with what the State Government says. Section 40(4) has unique rules that let a State Government give immunity to anyone who are otherwise illegally in possession of animal articles or trophies. The Act says exactly how this power should be used.
Orders Made Void
The court said that the announcements were not genuine since they were not published in the official gazette.
“When a statutory power is not used in the way that the Act says it should be, that power cannot be seen as having been used at all.”
It further said that publishing through electronic media cannot take the place of the legal duty to publish in the gazette.
The Bench then said that the government instructions from December 16, 2015, and February 17, 2016, were “void ab initio and legally unenforceable.”
State Can Send Out New Notice
The court did not say anything about the issuance of ownership certificates when it struck down the directives, since it thought that such comments could hurt Mohanlal in the ongoing criminal case.
But it made it clear that the state government can still publish a new notice under Section 40(4) of the Act if it wants to make the ownership of the ivory articles official.