Back
1997 Supreme(Del) 289
High Court Of Delhi
IVORY TRADERS AND MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 1016 of 1992
Decided On : 03/20/1997
Headnote:Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 — Writ petition — Violation of Fundamental right — Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A — Fundamental right — Right of carry business, equality and property - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 — Banning of ivory business, trade and manufacturing of articles there from — Petitioner sought quashing of ban — Grounds : Decision is unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable and vocative of fundamental rights — Pleaded — Threat to survival of human — Necessary in public life — Arrest depletion of animal life — Maintain ecological balance — Tests of reasonableness — Discussed — Parliament can legislate all ancillary and subsidiary subjects — No merits — Dismissed.
Held:
The impugned legislation falls within the power and competence of the Parliament as the same is meant to protect the Indian elephant. In order to achieve that purpose, the Parliament has undoubted power to deal with matters which, effectuate the same. It can legislate with regard to all ancillary and subsidiary subjects including the imposition of ban on trade in imported ivory of all descriptions, whether drawn from mammoth or elephant, for the salutary purpose of the preservation of the Indian elephant.
( 1 ) THERE are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1631/92, 1749/92 the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made therefrom have been banned. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made therefrom. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991.
( 2 ) IN so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ petition and the other writ petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 1272/92, 1631/92 and 1749/92, are the same.
( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 1016/92: The writ petitioners in this writ petition are mainly aggrieved by the ban imposed by the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 1991, on the trade in ivory derived from the African elephant. It is asserted by them that they only deal with ivory imported before the coming into operation of Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991. It is claimed that the first petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and in is Association of persons connected with the trade and business of ivory, including persons manufacturing articles therefrom. The second petitioner to the fourteenth petitioner are dealers in ivory. They assert that they are carrying on business and trade in ivory including the manufacture of articles derived from ivory lawfully imported into India prior to the ban and are members of the first petitioner. The fourteenth petitioner also claims to be an artisan engaged in the business of carving raw ivory. The fifteenth petitioner too claims to be an artisan. Therefore, they plead that they are persons affected by the Amendment Act.
( 4 ) AS per the prayer clause of that writ petition, the petitioners challenge Sections 5 (1), 27 (b), 30 (i), (iii), 33 (b) (ii), 34, 35 and 37 of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 1991 (Act No. 44 of 1991) (for short `the Amendment Act ) and the corresponding amendments/changes carried out in the Principal Act known Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. These amendments/changes have been effected : (1) in Section 2 (2); (2) by introduction of Clause (C) in Sub-section (1) of Section 39; (3) by omission of Clause (ia) from Sub-section (1) of Section 44; (4) by replacement of second proviso to Section 44; (5) by insertion of Sub-clause (iii) in Clause (c) of Section 49a; (6) by introduction of Sub-clause (ia) in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 49b; (7) in Section 49c (7); and (8) in Section 51 of the Principal Act. The petitioners find serious fault with Sections 49a (c) (iii) and 49b (1) (a) (ia) of the Principal Act as introduced by Sections 33 and 34 of the Amendment Act which have the effect of banning trade in ivory imported into India or articles derived therefrom. According to the petitioners such a ban is violative of Articles 19 (1) (g), 14 and 300a of the Constitution of India. The further grievance of the petitioners is that they cannot even retain the possession and control of the ivory lawfully imported by them and articles made or derived therefrom as the same has been made an offence under Section 51 of the Act read with Section 49c (7) thereof. According to the petitioners the ban is unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary.
( 5 ) WRIT Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93: The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1303/92 is a dealer and manufacturer of jewellery. It is claimed that the petitioner imported part of this stock of mammoth ivory from Russia a
