The court held that existing wildlife laws do not permit the classification of exotic species as prohibited goods and cannot compel legislative amendments based on voluntary disclosure policies.

Headnote:(A) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Customs Act, 1962 - The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus against possession of exotic species, claimed illegal under existing provisions, given the Advisory issued to regulate exotic wildlife - Previous judgments affirmed exempting those under time-sensitive voluntary disclosure from penalties - Court finds no legislative basis for amending existing wildlife laws or customs notifications regarding exotic species. (Paras 2, 3, 11, 12, 14)

(B) Public Interest - Court cannot intervene in legislative matters; the intentions behind existing amendments were assessed - The Advisory which outlines a voluntary disclosure mechanism does not warrant arrests for non-declared exotic species post-deadline, and the distinction between domestic species remains - Public policy and impact studies are necessary before such drastic amendments could be considered. (Paras 12, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The Public Interest Litigation was filed questioning the legality of possession of exotic animals without prior disclosure, referencing concerns over illegal wildlife trade and citing an Advisory meant to clarify regulations on managing such species.

Findings of Court:
The court reaffirmed the legality of existing practices regarding exotic species, stating no premise to direct government to enforce stricter amendments or prosecution outside current laws. The distinction between domestic and exotic animals remains.

Issues: Was the Advisory sufficient to allow legal possession of exotic species without documentation, and can the court direct changes in legislation against existing provisions?

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted limitations on judicial intervention in legislative affairs and confirmed that possession of undeclared exotic species without evidence of unlawful procurement doesn't constitute grounds for criminal prosecution or confiscation without constitutional violations.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. possession of exotic species without disclosure is questioned. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. the court affirms legislative adherence to existing wildlife and customs acts. (Para 6 , 10 , 12)
3. court dismisses petition based on insufficient grounds for intervention. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard all parties.

2. The above PIL petition is filed by a law graduate in public interest with prayers to seek issuance of show cause to the respondents as to why a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued declaring that possession of all exotic animals / birds by persons (other than those who have made voluntary disclosure with the time contemplated in Advisory, dated 11.06.2020(Annexure - 3), issued by Respondent No. 1, is illegal and the person in possession of such exotic animals / birds be forthwith prosecuted for violation under the Customs Act by Department of Revenue Intelligence and under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 .

3. Petitioner relies upon news articles (Annexures - 1 and 2) to demonstrate that there is proliferation of trade in exotic wildlife species in the State.

4. Petitioner submits that Birds and Animals can be categorized under following heads via a) Indigenous / local or Indian animal species and b) Exotic / Foreign or non - Indian animal species. Petitioner further submits that there is no provision / prohibition under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 qua the second category. Petitioner further submits that Respondent No. 1 issued an Advisory dated 11.06.2020 for dealing with import of exotic live species in India and declaration of stock within six months of the issuance of the Advisory.

5. Petitioner in his written submissions further contends that -
"3. Significantly, if a person who has availed the Advisory and made Voluntary disclosure is treated at par with a person who has not made declaration during the time period contemplated in the advisory; the legislative intent behind issuing advisory i.e., to grant immunity to a person making voluntary disclosure within stipulated time stands defeated and the Advisory serves no purpose. By not carrying out amendments in the two Acts granting immunity from prosecution and forfeiture to a person who has not made voluntary disclosure under the Advisory issued by Respondent No. 1 and thereby treating him at par with a compliant citizen would be violative of Art.14 of Constitution of India.
4. The protection to the person found with exotic species as noticed in the judgments of in the matter of Anil Naidu v. UoI (Writ Petition No. 807 of 2019) vide order dated 11.09.2019 : (Reported in AIROnLine 2019 Bom. 3407) and Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dinesh Chandra v. UOI (PIL civil 22903 of 2019) vide order dated 30.08.2019 : (Reported in AIROnLine 2019 All. 3141) against coercive steps and prosecution under The Wild Life Act, 1972 and The Customs Act, 1962 is prior to issuance of Advisory by Respondent No. 1 on 11.06.2020. Bombay High Court in the matter of Imran Latif v. DRI (Writ Petition No. 4779 of 2019) vide order dated 27.09.2019 : (Reported in AIROnLine 2019 Bom. 3408) held such offence under as bailable. Exotic species Birds and animals are subjected to torture while being caught and smuggled. This is offence of a grave magnitude and person smuggling or possessing such exotic species must be subjected to custodial interrogation to uncover the entire chain of criminals involved in the heinous crime. The offence of smuggling exotic species and possession of such species (not immune by timely disclosure as pert the Advisory) must be specifically made non bailable under the , and exotic species must be added in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 .
5. It would thus be in the public interest, if this Hon'ble Court would direct or at least recommend appropriate amendment in The Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972 by adding exotic species therein so that their domestic trade, transportation, breedin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7420

TRIPURA HIGH COURT, JAdwitiya Chakrabarti v. Union of IndiaPublic Interest Litigation

The court held that existing wildlife laws do not permit the classification of exotic species as prohibited goods and cannot compel legislative amendments based on voluntary disclosure policies.

TRIPURA HIGH COURT
, J
Adwitiya Chakrabarti v. Union of India
Public Interest Litigation