A pet African Grey parrot kept since 2018 is at the centre of a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, which has issued notice to the State and fixed November 3, 2026 for the interim application.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Issuing notice on a writ petition by a Bengaluru resident who wants his pet African Grey parrot back, the Karnataka High Court has also been asked to quash proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [R Mahesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Others]. The bird was taken into possession by the Forest Department’s CID Aranya Sanchari Dala. What follows is the petitioner’s case, and the authorities’ version was not reported.
In W.P. No. 29686/2026, Justice CM Poonacha issued notice on October 13, 2026 to the State of Karnataka, the Forest Department and the CID Aranya Sanchari Dala. Advocate Trivikram S. appeared for the petitioner.
What the petitioner wants
He asks the Court to quash the proceedings invoked on July 31, 2026 and the notice of July 27, 2026, and to direct the CID Aranya Sanchari Dala to return the bird. Pending the writ, he also seeks an interim stay of further proceedings under the notice.
How the bird came to him
The petitioner, a hobbyist, says an acquaintance gave him the parrot in 2018, when it was about three years old. One of its wings is inactive, he says, so it cannot fly normally. He says he looks after it on humanitarian grounds, spending Rs 6,000 to Rs 10,000 a month, and that he never bought, sold, bred or traded it.
Seizure and notice
The CID Aranya Sanchari Dala took physical possession of the bird on July 27, 2026, and the same day he was served a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. By July 31, 2026, the authorities had invoked provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, including Sections 49H, 49M, 49Q, 50 and 51.
The petitioner relies on a Karnataka High Court decision in Sri Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 15125/2024). His argument is that the Section 35 notice carried no crime number, did not state the offence alleged and did not come with a copy of the FIR, so he was under no obligation to appear.
What is still undecided
No finding has been made, and the Court has not yet decided whether the bird should go back to the petitioner in the meantime. Two questions will be tested: how much a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS must disclose about the offence alleged, and how the Wild Life (Protection) Act applies to a pet bird kept for years.
Case Title: R Mahesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Others [W.P. No. 29686/2026]
Bench: Justice CM Poonacha, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Trivikram S. for the petitioner