The Karnataka High Court has formally intervened in a dispute concerning the custody of an African Grey parrot, issuing a notice to state authorities following a petition filed by a Bengaluru resident. The petition challenges the seizure of the bird by the Karnataka Forest Department’s special investigation wing, the CID Aranya Sanchari Dala, which took place in late July. Justice C.M. Poonacha, presiding over a single-judge bench, directed the State of Karnataka, the Forest Department, and the investigating agency to respond to the allegations of arbitrary enforcement. The matter is now scheduled for a further hearing on an interim application on November 3.

The petitioner, R. Mahesh Kumar, a resident of the city’s Rajajinagar area, initiated the legal challenge after state authorities removed the bird from his residence on July 27, 2026. Kumar, who describes himself as a long-term animal hobbyist, claims that the bird was a rescued animal that has been under his care for approximately eight years. According to the petition, the parrot was handed to him by an acquaintance in 2018 when the bird was roughly three years old. Now approximately eleven years old, the parrot suffers from a physical impairment, specifically an inactive wing that prevents it from flying, rendering it entirely dependent on human care.

In his plea to the court, Kumar emphasizes that his relationship with the bird is rooted in humanitarian assistance rather than commercial gain. He reports spending between ₹6,000 and ₹10,000 monthly to manage the parrot’s dietary and veterinary requirements. The petition explicitly denies any involvement in the purchase, breeding, or commercial trade of wildlife, asserting that he has strictly adhered to ethical standards while providing a domestic environment for the disabled animal.

A Decade of Care at Risk

The conflict intensified following the July 27 operation, during which the Forest Department took the bird into custody and served the petitioner with a show-cause notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By July 31, 2026, authorities had formally invoked a suite of provisions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, including Sections 49D(K), 49H, 49M, 49Q, 50, and 51. These statutes typically govern the regulation and possession of exotic species, and the invocation of such extensive legal measures has significantly complicated the status of the bird.

Kumar’s counsel argued that the actions taken by the Forest Department were both illegal and arbitrary, failing to account for the unique medical circumstances of the bird or the established history of care provided by the petitioner. The sudden removal of the parrot, which had lived in a stable domestic environment for nearly a decade, has caused the petitioner significant distress, prompting him to seek immediate judicial review of the seizure orders and the underlying show-cause notice.

Procedural Lapses in Wildlife Seizure

A central pillar of the petitioner's argument rests on procedural deficiencies in the notice issued by the CID Aranya Sanchari Dala. Kumar contends that the authorities failed to comply with fundamental legal requirements when initiating these proceedings. Drawing heavily on the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka & Others , the petitioner argues that the notice served under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was fundamentally flawed.

In that earlier ruling, the High Court held that any notice issued under the relevant section of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita must explicitly mention the crime number and the specific offence alleged. Furthermore, the court had determined that a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) must be attached to the correspondence to ensure the noticee is fully informed of the allegations. The petitioner asserts that the notice provided to him lacked these essential details, rendering it ineffective under the established legal framework.

According to the petition , the failure to include these details is not merely a technical oversight but a substantive violation of the rights of the citizen. The plea argues that "the noticee is not obliged to appear, subject to just exceptions," when the document fails to provide a clear basis for the investigation. By invoking this precedent, the petitioner is seeking to quash the July 31 order and the July 27 notice, while simultaneously demanding the immediate restoration of the bird to his custody .

Seeking Judicial Intervention

The ongoing litigation highlights a recurring tension between the strict enforcement of wildlife protection laws and the realities of domestic, humanitarian-based care for non-native animals. While the state is tasked with preventing illegal trafficking and the degradation of wildlife, the petitioner posits that these enforcement mechanisms must be applied with due regard for the welfare of individual animals and the procedural rights of individuals.

The petitioner’s prayer to the High Court includes a request for an interim stay on all further proceedings related to the July 27 notice, pending the final disposal of his writ petition. He maintains that the authorities acted without proper consideration of the welfare implications of removing a physically challenged animal from a controlled, supportive environment to a state-run facility.

As the matter moves forward, the court is expected to examine whether the Forest Department acted within the bounds of both the Wild Life (Protection) Act and the procedural safeguards mandated by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The state’s response, due ahead of the November 3 hearing, will likely clarify the department's position on the legality of the bird's initial possession and the necessity of the current, aggressive enforcement strategy. For now, the bird remains in the custody of the Forest Department, as the petitioner awaits a judicial determination that could allow him to resume the care of his long-term companion.