Why in News?
- On 25 October 2025, the Kerala High Court declared that the ownership certificates and government orders legalising actor Mohanlal’s ivory possession were “illegal, void, and unenforceable.”
- The verdict reopened a 14-year-old wildlife case that began with the 2011 Income Tax raid at Mohanlal’s residence, where officials discovered four elephant tusks and 13 ivory artefacts.
- The judgment exposed systemic weaknesses in India’s wildlife governance, highlighting procedural violations, selective enforcement, and the influence of celebrity privilege.
Relevance :
GS-2 (Governance):
- Rule of law, administrative discretion, and procedural justice in environmental governance.
- Accountability of state agencies and misuse of executive power.
GS-3 (Environment):
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 — enforcement challenges, ivory trade bans, and conservation ethics.
- Weak deterrence and institutional gaps in wildlife crime prosecution.
GS-4 (Ethics):
- Moral dimensions of privilege, celebrity influence, and equality before law.
- Integrity and fairness in environmental justice.
Basic Legal Framework
1. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:
- Core legislation to protect India’s fauna and flora.
- Prohibits possession, sale, or display of wildlife trophies and animal articles (including ivory) without valid certification.
- Section 40 & 42:
- Section 40: Requires prior declaration of possession of any wildlife article.
- Section 42: Allows ownership certificates only after verification and gazette notification.
2. Ivory Ban:
- 1986: Complete ban on trade in Indian ivory.
- 1991 Amendment: Extended ban to African ivory imports and possession without certification.
- Ivory = Symbol of illegal wildlife trade, associated with elephant poaching and population decline.
Chronology of Events
- 2011:
Income Tax officials raid Mohanlal’s house → seize 4 tusks & 13 ivory artefacts.
Forest Department files case under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. - 2015:
Kerala govt issues a notification under Section 40(4) inviting declarations from those possessing ivory — aimed at regularising past possession.
→ Mohanlal declares ownership; Chief Wildlife Warden grants certificate under Section 42.
→ Case withdrawn; ivory declared “lawfully owned.” - 2018–2023:
Conservationists and ex-forest officers challenge the validity of certificates before the High Court, citing lack of gazette publication of notification. - 25 Oct 2025:
Kerala HC declares notification & certificates void ab initio — violating statutory procedure.
Rebukes State for “legal mala fides” and misuse of administrative discretion.
Key Legal and Procedural Issues
1. Gazette Publication Requirement:
- Mandatory for validity under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
- Kerala govt’s 2015 notification never published in the official gazette, making it legally non-existent.
2. Retrospective Regularisation:
- The 2015 notification allowed individuals to retroactively legalise illegal possession — undermining the spirit of the Act.
- The process effectively converted a criminal offence into paperwork compliance.
3. Violation of Equality Before Law (Article 14):
- Regularisation allegedly tailored to benefit a single high-profile individual.
- No similar leniency shown to other violators → selective enforcement.
4. Administrative Mala Fide:
- HC noted “convenience over legality”, indicating misuse of discretion by the State to protect the influential.
High Court’s Verdict (2025)
Bench: Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Jobin Sebastian.
Key Observations:
- “A power not exercised in the manner prescribed under the statute cannot be said to have been exercised at all.”
- Declared all ownership certificates void from inception.
- Criticised govt’s procedural shortcuts and lack of transparency.
- Stopped short of ordering confiscation or prosecution; left option for fresh, lawful notification if the govt wishes to reopen the process.
Significance:
- Reaffirmed that procedure is justice in environmental law.
- Reinforced rule of law over administrative convenience.
Ethical and Societal Dimensions
1. Symbolism of Ivory:
- Ivory represents centuries of elephant slaughter and ecological loss.
- Even if legally obtained, displaying ivory legitimises and normalises the trophy culture tied to poaching.
2. Kerala’s Cultural Paradox:
- Elephants = revered in temples and cinema.
- Yet, Kerala has high rates of human-elephant conflict and captive elephant abuse.
- Reflects a deep moral contradiction — worship and exploitation coexist.
3. Celebrity Privilege:
- Case reveals how influence distorts law enforcement.
- Bureaucratic bias toward the famous undermines public trust.
- “If this were an ordinary citizen,” remarked a forest officer, “the ivory would have been seized permanently.”
Broader Policy and Governance Implications
1. Weak Enforcement Architecture:
- State wildlife departments lack autonomy, legal clarity, and political backing.
- Enforcement often diluted by ministerial or celebrity pressure.
2. Transparency Gaps:
- Lack of public access to ownership records or notification details.
- Violates principles of accountable governance in environmental law.
3. Erosion of Deterrence:
- Administrative regularisation creates moral hazard — others may expect similar amnesty.
- Undermines deterrence embedded in Sections 49–51 (penalties) of the Act.
4. Judicial Intervention as Corrective:
- Courts remain the last line of defence in wildlife protection.
- Reinforces importance of procedural compliance as a safeguard against arbitrariness.
