The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to urgently hear a petition filed by Wildlife SOS co-founder and CEO Kartick Satyanarayan challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that withdrew his interim protection from arrest in an alleged leopard poaching case.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana agreed to list the plea this week after Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave mentioned the matter for urgent hearing.

The case stems from a probe initiated by the Madhya Pradesh State Tiger Strike Force (STSF) concerning the alleged poaching of leopards, whose skins were recovered in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had recently dismissed two petitions filed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It revoked Satyanarayan's interim protection on alleged non-cooperation and directed him to appear before the STSF on September 21.

According to a report, the High Court's Gwalior Bench recalled the relief after the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department alleged that Satyanarayan suppressed a third summons and an arrest warrant issued against him, while failing to join the probe into the poaching of 10 leopards across Sheopur and Morena districts.

Rejecting the State's classification of Satyanarayan as "absconding," Wildlife SOS maintained that its anti-poaching unit had originally assisted in busting the racket, asserting that seeking legitimate legal protection does not amount to a refusal to cooperate.

While mentioning the matter today, Dave submitted,

"Two petitions have been dismissed by the High Court under the Wildlife Protection Act. We are from an NGO and we had led to the recovery of leopard skins. Now we ourselves have been implicated by the State."

"You were keeping leopards at home?" CJI Kant asked.

Dave clarified,

"No. We led to the recovery of the skins in Agra. The recovery was in Uttar Pradesh, and the matter was thereafter taken up in Madhya Pradesh. We are willing to cooperate and appear before the authorities, but we need protection."

Dave added that protection was necessary across related proceedings.

"There is no point in appearing in one matter with protection if I can be arrested in the other."

Acceding to the request, CJI Kant said,

"It will be listed."

[Read Live Coverage]