Kerala High Court Invalidates Actor Mohanlal's Ivory Ownership Certificates Due to Legal Procedural Failures

Kerala High Court on Friday declared that the ownership certificates for ivory items possessed by actor Mohanlal were void and legally unenforceable, as issued by the Forest Department.

A Division Bench consisting of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian clarified that the state government may issue a fresh notification under Section 40(4) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, should it wish to allow the actor to retain the ivory articles.

The ruling was delivered on a petition filed by Paulose KA of Eloor, Kochi, who challenged the state government's notifications issued under Section 40(4) of the Act. These notifications had permitted Mohanlal to declare two pairs of ivory tusks and 13 ivory artifacts before the Chief Wildlife Warden and subsequently obtain ownership certificates under Section 42 of the Act.

The petitioner contended that the Forest Department had issued these certificates despite ongoing criminal proceedings related to the ivories pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Perumbavoor.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the court noted that while the government had issued notifications requiring Mohanlal to declare the ivory items, which the actor had complied with, the fundamental question was whether those notifications fulfilled the statutory requirements.

The Bench emphasized that the state had admitted the notifications were not published in the official gazette, which is a mandatory requirement under the Act.

The government's argument that adequate publicity through alternative means was sufficient was rejected by the court.

"We are afraid we cannot accept the said contention of the State Government," observed the Bench.

"The provisions of Section 40(4) are special provisions that empower a State Government to confer immunity on persons otherwise in unlawful possession of animal articles or trophies. Such power must be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed under the Act."

The court determined that failure to publish the notification in the official gazette invalidated the orders, ruling that "when a statutory power is not exercised in the manner prescribed under the Act, then that power cannot be seen as having been exercised at all." It further stated that publication through electronic media could not substitute the statutory requirement of gazette publication.

"We therefore conclude by holding that the government orders dated December 16, 2015, and February 17, 2016, are void ab initio and legally unenforceable," the court declared.

However, while striking down the government orders, the court refrained from commenting on how the ownership certificates were issued, noting that such observations could prejudice the actor in the pending criminal proceedings.

The Bench clarified that the state government retains the liberty to issue a fresh notification in accordance with Section 40(4) of the Act to confer immunity as permitted under the law.