In a significant ruling on Friday, October 24, the Kerala High Court set aside ownership certificates earlier granted to Malayalam film actor Mohanlal for keeping ivory, declaring the documents have no legal standing.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Jobin Sebastian and AK Jayasankaran Nambiar. They have examined the government orders that were issued on January 16, 2016 and April 6, 2016 as per a report by Live Law.
The orders were issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Wildlife. After reviewing, the judges stated that these approvals did not follow statutory requirements and were therefore termed as “void” and “illegal and unenforceable”.
The state is free to reissue certificates, but as per the statutory provision
While quashing the earlier orders, the Bench clarified that the state retains the authority to issue a fresh notification in accordance with Section 44 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, if procedural safeguards have been followed. This provision allows the government to allow limited immunity for lawful possession, subject to statutory checks.
The court did not comment on allegations raised in the petitions related to how the power to issue certificates was exercised. The judges underlined that any findings on those claims could potentially affect criminal proceedings that are currently pending against the actor.
All about Mohanlal’s ivory case
The judgment was delivered in reply to public interest litigations (PILs) filed by James Mathew and Paulose, who challenged the regularisations of the actor’s possession of ivory. As per the petitions, the certificates granted to Mohanlal were issued retrospectively and reportedly facilitated through corruption and collusion.
The controversy came into the news during a raid in Mohanlal’s residence in Kochi in June 2012. The Income Tax Department reportedly had recovered two pairs of ivory. The actor did not have any government-issued license allowing possession of ivory at that time. Consequently, the Forest Department registered a case under Section 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act. Friday’s ruling invalidates the previous attempt to legalise ownership.