SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

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.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the legality of the advisory. (Para 1 , 2)
2. agreement with prior high court decisions. (Para 3 , 4)
3. post-deadline declarations lack exemptions. (Para 5)
4. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 6)

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top