The Karnataka High Court has initiated formal judicial proceedings regarding the custody of an African grey parrot that was seized by state authorities, setting the stage for a critical examination of how the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, interacts with long-term pet ownership. Justice CM Poonacha issued a formal notice to the Karnataka State Forest Department and the Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) Aranya Sanchari Dala on October 13, 2026, marking the latest development in a dispute that pits individual pet stewardship against stringent wildlife enforcement protocols.

The petitioner, a Bengaluru resident named R Mahesh Kumar, has approached the High Court seeking the immediate restoration of the bird, which has been in his care since 2018. The petition also requests that the court quash the legal proceedings initiated against him by the forest authorities in late July 2026. This case has drawn attention not only for the specific status of the exotic bird but for the owner’s challenge regarding the procedural transparency of the initial seizure notice.

A Standoff Over Avian Custody

The controversy began on July 27, 2026, when personnel from the CID Aranya Sanchari Dala took physical possession of the parrot from Mr. Kumar’s residence. On the same day, the authorities served a notice upon the owner under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By July 31, 2026, the state had invoked multiple sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, including sections 49H, 49M, 49Q, 50, and 51, which govern the possession and transfer of protected wildlife species.

According to Mr. Kumar, the bird was originally acquired from an acquaintance in 2018 when it was approximately three years old. The petitioner maintains that he has consistently acted as a caretaker rather than a trader, noting that the bird suffers from an inactive wing that prevents it from flying normally. Mr. Kumar claims he has spent between ₹6,000 and ₹10,000 monthly on the bird’s maintenance, providing humanitarian care for an animal that he insists was never the subject of commercial breeding, trading, or sale. The sudden seizure of the parrot has effectively separated the owner from a pet he has maintained for eight years, prompting his urgent plea to the High Court for an interim stay on further actions while the court determines the legality of the department's seizure.

Questioning Procedural Transparency in Wildlife Seizure

Central to Mr. Kumar’s legal challenge is the alleged lack of clarity in the notice served by the CID Aranya Sanchari Dala. Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Trivikram S., argued before the High Court that the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was fundamentally flawed. The petition highlights that the document did not provide a crime number, failed to specify the nature of the alleged offence, and did not include a copy of the First Information Report (FIR).

Drawing upon the precedent established by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka , the petitioner asserts that he was under no legal obligation to comply with a notice that lacked the basic particulars of an alleged crime. By challenging the validity of the notice itself, the petitioner aims to undermine the legitimacy of the subsequent steps taken by the Forest Department. The court’s decision to issue notice to the state government signals a willingness to scrutinize whether the procedures followed by the authorities meet the statutory requirements expected in such enforcement actions.

Judicial Oversight and the Path Forward

While the legal battle is currently in its early stages, the implications of the Court’s eventual ruling may have a significant impact on how authorities handle exotic pet cases in the future. The two primary questions currently pending before the High Court are: the extent to which a notice under Section 35(3) must disclose the particulars of an alleged offence, and the precise application of the Wild Life (Protection) Act to pets that have been kept in domestic settings for several years without any history of commercial activity.

As of the latest hearing, no substantive finding has been made regarding the ultimate fate of the bird, and the court has yet to rule on the interim application for the parrot’s return to Mr. Kumar’s custody. The Forest Department and the CID’s Forest Mobile Squad are now expected to file their responses to the court’s notice, providing their official version of the seizure and the legal basis for the ongoing proceedings.

The courtroom atmosphere reflects the tension between rigorous wildlife preservation and the personal rights of pet owners who claim to be acting on humanitarian grounds. For now, the case remains in the procedural phase, with the High Court having fixed November 3, 2026, as the next date of hearing. The upcoming sessions will likely determine whether the state’s justification for the seizure holds up under judicial review or if the petitioner’s claims regarding the procedural lapses of the investigating agencies warrant a quashing of the pending proceedings. Until then, the African grey parrot remains in the custody of the authorities, while the petitioner awaits a definitive ruling on whether his long-standing stewardship will be recognized by the law.