In a major setback to actor Mohanlal, the Kerala High Court ruled that his ivory ownership certificates were void and unenforceable under the Wildlife Protection Act. The Court said the State failed to meet legal requirements before granting him ownership of the tusks and artefacts.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the ownership certificates issued by the State government to Malayalam actor Mohanlal for two pairs of elephant ivory tusks and 13 ivory artefacts were void and legally unenforceable.
The Court said that the government had not followed the legal procedures mentioned in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, before granting these certificates.
The case, James Mathew v. State of Kerala and a connected case, was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian.
The Bench cancelled two government orders passed in February 2015 and February 2016, and also struck down the ownership certificates given to Mohanlal in January and April 2016.
The judges said that the State government had failed to comply with the necessary legal requirements while issuing these certificates.
However, they avoided commenting on how the powers to issue the certificates were used, saying that doing so could affect the ongoing criminal case against the actor.
The Court observed:
“We therefore conclude by holding that the Government orders dated 16.12.2015 and 17.02.2016 are void ab initio and legally unenforceable. However, while striking down the said Government orders, as also the ownership certificates dated 16.01.2016 and 06.04.2016 issued to the respondent actor pursuant thereto, as illegal and unenforceable, we refrain from dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners as regards the manner in which the power to issue the ownership certificates in question were exercised. We feel that any finding on the said issues might prejudice the respondent actor in the criminal proceedings that are pending against him.”
The Court also made it clear that the government can still issue a fresh notification under Section 40(4) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
This section allows the State government to ask anyone to declare if they have any wild animal articles in their possession. Such a declaration is a must before the government can grant ownership certificates or immunity from criminal prosecution for possessing animal articles.
The Bench further stated:
“We would only observe that the State Government is at liberty to issue a fresh notification, in terms of Section 40(4) of the 1972 Act, for conferring the immunity envisaged under the said provision, to persons or class of persons envisaged under the statutory provision.”
The judgment came after two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions were filed by James Mathew and Paulose AA.
They challenged the notifications issued by the State government under Section 40(4) of the Wildlife Act, which had allowed Mohanlal to declare that he owned the ivory tusks and artefacts. After he made these declarations, the government issued him ownership certificates under Section 42 of the Act.
The petitioners argued that the government’s actions were illegal because the notifications were not published in the official gazette, which is a mandatory requirement. They also said that no proper inquiry was conducted to check whether the actor had legally obtained the ivory items.
Meanwhile, in September 2023, the Kerala High Court had stayed the trial proceedings against Mohanlal under the Wildlife Protection Act.
The actor has always maintained that the ivory tusks were legally acquired, and that the Kerala government had issued him ownership certificates following directions from the Central government.
Later, the State government also gave him a no-objection certificate (NOC) to withdraw the criminal case. But in June 2022, a magistrate court rejected the State’s plea to withdraw the case. Both Mohanlal and the State government then approached the High Court against that order.
In February 2023, the High Court partly allowed the State’s petition and directed the magistrate to consider the matter again.
The State later filed a fresh withdrawal plea, but the magistrate dismissed it in August 2023, saying the State had failed to mention that the validity of the actor’s ownership certificate was still under challenge in the High Court. Mohanlal then challenged this order before the High Court, leading to the September 2023 stay.
Now, with this latest judgment, the Kerala High Court has allowed the PILs and struck down all ownership certificates issued to Mohanlal.
However, it gave the State liberty to issue new notifications under the Wildlife (Protection) Act that could allow the actor to make a fresh declaration.
The final decision in the criminal case against Mohanlal is still pending.
The petitioners were represented by advocates Abraham P Meachinkara, George Cleetus, MV Lalu Mathews, and PA Sainudeen.
The State was represented by Additional Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose, and Senior Counsel SS Sreekumar, assisted by advocate KR Radhakrishnan Nair, appeared for Mohanlal.
Case Title:
James Mathew v State of Kerala and connected case
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mohanlal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
