Setback to Mohanlal; Kerala High Court says his ivory ownership certificates are illegal

The Kerala High Court on Friday held that State-issued certificates that declared Malayalam actor Mohanlal as the owner of two pairs of elephant ivory tusks and 13 ivory artifacts were void and legally unenforceable. [James Mathew v State of Kerala and connected case].

A Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian struck down State government orders passed in the matter in February 2015 and February 2016, as well as the ownership certificates given to the actor thereafter in January and April 2016.

The Court held that the government had failed to comply with statutory requirements under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, before issuing the same.

It, however, refrained from getting into the details of how the powers to issue the certificates were exercised, noting that such findings could affect the ongoing criminal proceedings against the actor.

"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 said.

The Court clarified that the government was at liberty to issue a fresh notification under Section 40(4) of the Act, which empowers the State to call on any person to declare any wild animal article in his custody.

Such a declaration is required before the State may grant such persons ownership certificates or any immunity from criminal prosecution under the Wildlife Protection Act for illegally possessing animal articles.

"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 ruling said.

The judgment was passed on two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed by James Mathew and Paulose AA.

The petitioners challenged the notifications issued by the State under Section 40(4) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which permitted Mohanlal to declare before the Chief Wildlife Warden that he (Mohanlal) possessed two pairs of ivory tusks and 13 ivory artifacts.

After he made such declarations, the State issued ownership certificates in the actor's favour under Section 42 of the Act.

The petitioners contended that these actions were unlawful as the notifications were never published in the official gazette, a mandatory requirement under the statute, and that there was no proper inquiry into the lawfulness of the actor’s possession of the ivory items.

On a related note, in September 2023, the High Court stayed trial proceedings under the Wildlife Protection Act against Mohanlal in the matter.

Mohanlal has maintained that the ivory tusks were obtained legally and that, at the direction of the Central government, the Kerala government had issued a certificate of ownership to him.

Subsequently, the State also issued a no-objection certificate for withdrawing the case against him.

However, in June 2022, a magistrate court dismissed the State's application to withdraw the case. Both the actor and the State moved the High Court against this order.

In February 2023, the High Court partially allowed the State's petition and asked the magistrate to consider the plea afresh. Subsequently, the State approached the magistrate with a fresh plea to withdraw the case.

The magistrate dismissed the petition in August 2023 after noting that the plea was filed without disclosing that the validity of the ownership certificate granted to Mohanlal was under challenge in writ petitions before the High Court. This decision was challenged by Mohanlal before the High Court, leading to the September 2023 stay order.

Today, the Court allowed the PILs that challenged the ownership certificates issued to Mohanlal, while giving the State liberty to issue fresh notifications under the 1972 Act, which could permit the actor to make fresh declarations.

The final verdict in the criminal case against Mohanlal remains pending.

The petitioners were represented by advocates Abraham P Meachinkara, George Cleetus, MV Lalu Mathews, and PA Sainudeen.

Additional Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose appeared for the State.

Senior counsel SS Sreekumar assisted by advocate KR Radhakrishnan Nair appeared for Mohanlal.

[Read Judgment]