Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Wildlife Amendment Rules Allowing Declaration Of Animal Trophies, Ivory; Seeks State's Reply

The Kerala High Court has recently (8 April) directed the State to file an affidavit on a petition challenging the Kerala Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2026, alleging that the State government is attempting to dilute statutory safeguards and retrospectively legitimize illegal possession of wildlife articles, including ivory.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued the direction in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which sought to halt the implementation of the notification regarding the amendment of the Kerala Wildlife (Protection) Rules issued by the State government on March 04, 2026. Rule 2 of the amended Rules, grants a fresh 45 day window for individuals to declare possession of animal articles, trophies, and other wildlife derivatives.The petitioner argues that this effectively reopens a statutory deadline that expired in 2003 under the Declaration of Wildlife Stock Rules, which required declarations within 180 days. Any undeclared wildlife articles thereafter automatically vest in the government, the petition states.The petition raises concerns over the legality of the State's notification, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala [(2023) 4 SCALE 442], which held that immunity for declaring possession of ivory items cannot extend beyond 180 days.The dispute traces back to earlier proceedings involving the State government's decision to permit Malayalam Actor Mohanlal, to declare possession of two pairs of ivory tusks and 13 ivory artifacts. Those earlier government orders were set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court due to failure to publish them in the official gazette, though liberty was granted to issue fresh notifications in compliance with requirements.During the present hearing, the State, represented by the Additional Director General of Prosecution, argued that the impugned notification was issued pursuant to the High Court's earlier directions.The Bench observed that, prima facie, the State appeared to have acted bona fide in issuing the fresh notification after curing procedural defects identified in the earlier round of litigation. “Whether the doctrine of occupied field is applicable in view of Section 40 and 40A of the 1972 Act conferring similar powers to the State and Central Government, would require consideration.” Court added. The Court, however, declined to stay the notification at this stage, and clarified that any declarations made or immunity granted under the March 2026 notification would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.The Court directed the State government to file its affidavit by May 25. Case No: WP(PIL) 78/ 2026Case Title: James Mathew v State of Kerala and Ors. Counsel for Petitioners: Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, P. Muraleedharan, Margaret Maureen Drose, Jayakrishnan P.R, Thomas George, Aisha FoucikCounsel for Respondent: Suraj Kumar D., Grashious KuriakoseClick Here To Read/ Download Interim Order

Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Wildlife Amendment Rules Allowing Declaration Of Animal Trophies, Ivory; Seeks State's Reply

Anamika MJ

Tags