Don’t let poachers sneak through

Wildlife-related issues, particularly incidents of wild animals straying into human habitations and causing loss of life and property, often dominate headlines in Kerala. This time, however, the focus has shifted to wildlife articles.

The State Forest Department’s decision to offer a one-time amnesty scheme for the keepers of undeclared wildlife articles has generated unusual interest in the State, where many people are believed to possess such articles. Officials say they have been receiving applications from people who want to declare inherited animal trophies and obtain ownership certificates, or surrender them without any case being registered.

The proposal, which the Forest Department had been pushing for some time, gained particular significance following a recent Kerala High Court judgment that cancelled the ownership certificates issued for two sets of ivory and 13 ivory idols found in the illegal possession of actor Mohanlal.

In fact, even before the High Court order, the Forest Department had got approval for the proposal at a meeting of the State Wildlife Advisory Board held on June 18, 2025, chaired by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The proposal allowed legal owners of wildlife articles to surrender them to the department. The proposal has to be ratified by the Union Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change.

Section 40(2B) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, notes that the keepers of wildlife articles or trophies must submit a declaration to the Chief Wildlife Warden within 90 days of inheriting them. This ensures that these articles are registered and not illegally traded. However, according to the Forest Department, most people, due to ignorance, submit their applications after the legal deadline. It adds that there also may be many people who inherit trophies but never declare them. The amnesty scheme, it argues, offers such individuals one final opportunity.

In Kerala, the statutory deadline for declaring such articles expired on October 18, 2003. The Act also requires the Forest Department to conduct an inquiry into the legality of possession before accepting surrendered articles or issuing ownership certificates.

A plain reading of the Act makes it clear that only legally owned or legally inherited wildlife articles are eligible for declaration and certification. Articles illegally acquired cannot be legitimised merely by surrender. The crucial safeguard, therefore, lies in the inquiry to be conducted by the Chief Wildlife Warden or an authorised officer to determine whether the possession is lawful.

In the case of Mr. Mohanlal, ownership certificates were issued for two sets of ivory and several ivory idols that came to light during an Income Tax raid at his Kochi residence a few years ago. These certificates were granted following an inquiry by a forest official. However, the articles were neither inherited by the actor nor derived from animals he legally owned. The petitioners who challenged the granting of the certificates to him said that the Forest Department failed to conduct a proper inquiry and the notifications were not published in the government gazette.

While the Kerala High Court did not delve into the issue of the adequacy of the inquiry, the Bench comprising Justices A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian declared the orders issuing the ownership certificates void ab initio and legally unenforceable. The Bench also observed that the State government was free to issue “a fresh notification for conferring the immunity envisaged under the statutory provision, to persons or a class of persons envisaged under the statute.”

The government’s amnesty initiative comes at a time when celebrities, including Union Minister and actor Suresh Gopi and rapper Vedan (Hirandas Murali), are under investigation for the alleged possession of ornaments made from wildlife articles. While the government may justifiably consider genuine cases involving the surrender of legally acquired wildlife articles and protect such keepers from prolonged litigation, the amnesty must not become a backdoor mechanism to legitimise illegal possession. Wildlife trophies obtained unlawfully constitute a punishable offence under the Act.

The government must also ensure that legal safeguards are not diluted, as was alleged in the Mohanlal case, since any such dilution would encourage wildlife crime and illegal trade, ultimately endangering protected species.