The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petitions, declaring government notifications issued under Section 40(4) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, invalid for want of publication in the official gazette. Consequently, all ownership certificates granted to the respondent, a celebrated film actor, for ivory tusks and artifacts in their possession were quashed as illegal and unenforceable.
Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, possession of protected species or their parts (like ivory) by private persons must be declared properly within strict time limits. The State may subsequently confer immunity by notification in the official gazette, enabling lawful possession certificates. The respondent did not make timely declaration but later obtained ownership certificates based on notifications not published as prescribed by law.
The petitioners alleged that failure to follow statutory procedure rendered the notifications and ownership certificates void, entitling the State to reconsider the grant of immunity and property rights in accordance with law.
Criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondent for unlawful ivory possession. Meanwhile, the State issued notifications and ownership certificates under the Wild Life (Protection) Act allowing retrospective declarations. Petitioners contested the validity of these administrative actions for non-compliance with statutory mandates.
The State argued that publicity through circulation and electronic media sufficed and that the absence of gazette publication was a minor technical defect causing no prejudice.
The Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held this view untenable, affirming that strict adherence to statutory procedure is essential to maintain legal sanctity and objectivity of Wildlife law.
The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation must be gazetted to be valid, citing leading Supreme Court precedents. The petitions were held bona fide representing genuine public interest rather than malicious intent.
The Court held that non-publication of State notifications in the official gazette rendered them void ab initio. Ownership certificates issued pursuant to these defective notifications were consequently illegal and unenforceable.
The Court refrained from interfering with concurrent criminal proceedings against the respondent for unlawful ivory possession, and the State was granted liberty to issue fresh notifications strictly according to law to confer immunity lawfully henceforth.
Cases referred to:
- Nazir Ahmad v. The King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253(2)
- K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 1 SCC 658
- T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 634
- Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. v. Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association and Ors., (2025) 6 SCC 717
