Introduction:
In a significant judgment on Friday, the Kerala High Court (hereinafter “the Court”) held that the ownership certificates issued by the State of Kerala to the noted Malayalam actor Mohanlal for possessing ivory are illegal and unenforceable in law. The certificates in question were issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Wildlife on 16 January 2016 and 6 April 2016 in his favour. The matter arises out of public interest litigations (PILs) filed by James Mathew and AA Paulose, challenging the validity of these certificates and the government orders underlying them. The actor – Mohanlal – had been booked by the Forest Department under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA) following seizure of two pairs of ivory tusks from his Kochi residence in an Income-Tax Department raid in June 2012, at a time when no certificate was held by him. The State Government, following his application, had issued the certificates in 2016 and again in 2019, apparently to regularise his possession. The High Court’s Division Bench of Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, however, found that the Government Orders and the certificates were “void” and the certificates “illegal and unenforceable”, while allowing the possibility of fresh issuance under Section 44 of the WLPA.
Arguments of the Petitioners (James Mathew & AA Paulose):
The petitioners asserted that the certificates issued in 2016 in favour of the actor were nothing more than attempts at retrospective regularisation of possession of ivory, which was initially illegal. They contended that the two pairs of ivory tusks seized in 2012 were in the actor’s possession without any valid certificate or permit under the WLPA at the time of seizure, and therefore the subsequent issuance of ownership certificates by the State amounted to granting immunity outside the statutory scheme. They argued that the Government Orders dated 16 January 2016 and 6 April 2016 were issued in breach of the statutory safeguards under the WLPA. The petitioners further alleged that the process by which the certificates were granted involved possible corruption and collusion, favouring a high-profile individual, and thus undermining the public interest and the object of wildlife protection. They contended that the State’s decision to treat the matter as a mere formality ignored the requirement of posting the same in the Gazette or following prescribed procedure of Section 44 WLPA, and that the magistrate’s consideration of withdrawal of prosecution should not proceed till the legality of the certificates was fully probed. The petitioners urged that the Court declare the Government Orders void, strike down the certificates, and direct the State to follow due process, calling for transparency and accountability in exercise of discretion under the WLPA.
Arguments of the Actor / State Government:
On behalf of Mohanlal, it was contended that the actor had obtained the certificates after making his representation to the Government in January 2016 and again in September 2019, asserting that the ivory in his possession had been acquired legally from a captive elephant and thus fell within the scope of Section 44 WLPA which allows for issuance of ownership certificates for wildlife articles under certain conditions. The actor’s counsel argued that once the certificate was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Wildlife, the possession became regularised and thus the prosecution could not be sustained. The State Government, on its part, argued that it had acted in good faith in issuing the certificates and that the purpose of the WLPA is primarily to conserve wildlife and the origin of the ivory in this case was alleged to be from a captive elephant, and therefore the possession did not conflict with the object of the Act. The State also urged for withdrawal of the prosecution, on the ground of expedition and public interest, contending that continuing the process would be a futile exercise. The actor and State further submitted that as the certificate had been accepted and the matter processed, the issue of legality of the certificate should not hold up the disposal of the case.
The Court’s Judgment:
The Bench carefully analysed the Government Orders dated 16 January 2016 and 6 April 2016, and the scheme of Section 44 of the WLPA. The Court concluded that the impugned Government Orders were “void” and the accompanying ownership certificates were “illegal and unenforceable in law.” Among the key observations:
The Court noted that issuance of ownership certificates under Section 44 must comply with the statutory scheme and cannot be used for retrospective regularisation of unlawful possession outside those confines. The government orders in this case did not meet the requirement of gazette notification or the proper posting of such certificate as envisaged by the statute and thus failed the test of enforceability.
The Court emphasized the principle of equality before law, observing that the actor, despite his public status, could not be afforded a process which did not conform to statutory safeguards. The Bench stated that “law must be uniform to all, irrespective of their status as peasant, poor, middle class or higher class”.
The Bench held that while it was not entering into the question of the manner of exercise of discretion in issuance of the certificates (because of the pendency of criminal proceedings and to avoid prejudice) it was clear that in the present form the certificates could not stand legally. In this regard, it refrained from adjudicating on allegations of corruption or collusion, noting that such findings might prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings.
Crucially, the Court clarified that the State government remains “at liberty to issue a fresh notification in terms of Section 44 of theWLPA for conferring the immunity and benefits under the said provision as per the statutory scheme.” This means that while the existing certificates are struck down, the door is still open for a fresh process, provided the statutory requirements are met.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the Government Orders and ownership certificates be declared void; the certificates stand cancelled and cannot be enforced. The Court remanded the matter of prosecution and regulation to the appropriate authorities, but did not adjudicate the merits of the prosecution itself or the manner of issuance of certificates, leaving those issues to the ongoing trial/prosecution forums.
Significance and Implications:
This judgment is significant for several reasons. First, it reinforces the necessity that exercise of discretionary power under wildlife laws must adhere strictly to the statutory scheme and cannot be used as a tool for after-the-fact regularisation of illegal possession. Second, it underlines that even high-profile individuals are not exempt from compliance with wildlife regulation norms and that status cannot justify deviation from statutory safeguards. Third, it sends a strong message on the importance of procedural propriety in issuance of ownership certificates under Section 44 WLPA, ensuring public transparency, Gazette notification, and proper scrutiny. Fourth, it preserves the role of public interest litigation in holding administrative action to account, particularly in the domain of wildlife conservation which is critical to public interest. Fifth, by allowing the State to issue a fresh certificate, the Court has balanced the interest of the individual (who may have genuine claim) with the need to ensure legality and public confidence in the process. It therefore opens the possibility for the actor to obtain legal recognition, but only in conformity with statute, thus removing any taint of arbitrary regularisation.
Conclusion:
The Kerala High Court’s judgment sets a precedent that ownership certificates for wildlife articles cannot bypass statutory procedures and that retrospective regularisation must meet clear standards of transparency and legality. While this judgment is a setback for Mohanlal in so far as the existing certificates are struck down, it leaves open a lawful route for fresh regularisation under Section 44 of the WLPA. The State Government will need to follow the statutory pathway strictly if it wishes to issue a fresh certificate, and the actor’s possession remains subject to the ongoing criminal proceedings.