1. Public Interest Litigation challenging the validity of a Ministry of Environment notification regarding the import and declaration of stock of exotic live species of animals and birds. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1956
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Swetab Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Ministry Of Environment, Forest & Climate Change And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 540 Of 2022
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Pooja Yadav, Adv., Mr. Vedant Singh, AOR
For the Petitioner: Ms. Pooja Yadav, Adv., Mr. Vedant Singh, AOR
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change's 11.06.2020 Advisory, affirming that declarations of exotic live species made within the specified six-month window grant immunity from prosecution and protect the species from seizure and confiscation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation - Legality of the notification dated 11.06.2020 regarding import of exotic live species of animals and birds - Advisory upheld by various High Courts, including Delhi, Rajasthan, Meghalaya, and Allahabad, on similar grounds, confirming that declaration within six months grants exemption from explanation of source and protection from prosecution. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The interpretation suggested by the petitioner would frustrate the purpose of the Advisory, which was designed to clarify the legal framework governing the import of exotic live species. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
Writ Petition filed challenging the legality of a notification concerning exotic live species, previously upheld by multiple High Courts.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Advisory holds legal validity and its interpretation as proposed by the petitioner is contrary to its intended purpose, thus the petition lacks merit.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the notification enabling declarations of exotic species was lawful and the implications of such declarations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that adherence to the Advisory promotes environmental protection, and any misinterpretation undermines its objectives. The petitioner’s interpretation would cause absurd outcomes, thus the notification remains authoritative.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the legality and validity of the advisory for dealing with the import of exotic live species and declaration of stock. (Para 1 )
3. The court upheld the advisory, noting that declarations within the specified window provide immunity from prosecution and seizure, consistent with various High Court rulings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. Declarations of exotic live species made within the prescribed window exempt the declarant from explaining the source and provide immunity from seizure and prosecution. (Para 4 )
5. The writ petition is dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. What is the legal effect of declaring exotic live species within the window provided by the Ministry of Environment's advisory?
Declarants or transferees are exempt from explaining the source of the species, and the species or their progeny are not liable to seizure or confiscation. Furthermore, the declarant or transferee is immune from civil, fiscal, and criminal prosecution. (Para 4 )
7. Does the exemption from prosecution and seizure apply to declarations made after the expiry of the advisory's window?
No, any declaration made after the expiry of the window carries no such exemption, and the declarer must comply with all requisite documentation under extant laws and regulations. (Para 5 )
8. How does the court treat challenges to an advisory that has been consistently upheld by multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court?
The court may find such prior judgments to be a complete answer to the present challenge, especially when the reasoning prevents absurdity and upholds the object of the advisory. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
ORDER :
1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the notification dated 11.06.2020 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The said notification was issued in the form of an “advisory for dealing with import of exotic live species of animals and birds in India and declaration of stock”.
2. The same Advisory has been the subject matter of challenge before various High Courts on identical grounds. However, it has been upheld at all junctures. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 23.10.2020 rendered in Khodiyar Animal Welfare Trust & Anr. Vs. Ministry of Environment [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6372 of 2020]; judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 14.10.2020 in Vivek Swami Vs. Union of India [D.B. Writ Petition No. 7491 of 2020]; judgment of the Meghalaya High Court dated 14.10.2020 in Miss. J.S.Wahlang Vs. Union of India [PIL No. 15 of 2021]; and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 30.07.2020 in Dinesh Chandra Vs. Union of India through Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Others [P.I.L. Civil No. 12032 of 2020].
3. We have gone through the judgments of the High Courts referred to above upholding the Advisory impugned herein and are in agreement with the same. It may be noted that a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (C) No. 11659 of 2020, was filed against the abovementioned judgment of the Allahabad High Court which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2020.
4. The above judgment of the Allahabad High Court is a complete answer to the present PIL filed by the petitioner. Any interpretation to the contrary as suggested by the petitioner would defeat the very object of the Advisory. Once a declaration within the window of six months as provided under the Advisory is made, the exotic live species, including its progeny, the declarant or transferee(s) are fully exempt from explaining the source of exotic live species. The exotic live species which is declared or its progeny, are not liable to confiscation or seizure by any Central Agency or State Agency. Consequently, the declarant or the transferee(s) of such declarant will be immune from prosecution under any civil, fiscal and criminal statute by any Central or State Agency. Any other interpretation would lead to absurdity.
5. However, any declaration made after the expiry of the window under the Advisory shall carry no such exemption and the declarer shall have to comply with all requisite documentation under the extant laws and regulations.
6. The present Writ Petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
