In a significant ruling, the Tripura High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a lawyer seeking amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Customs Act, 1962 to regulate the import and export of the exotic species.
The PIL petition is filed by Ms. Adwitiya Chakrabarti, a law graduate in public interest seeking issuance of direction that possession of all exotic animals/ birds by persons (other than those who have made voluntary disclosure with the time contemplated in Advisory, dated 11.06.2020, issued by the Central Government, is illegal and the person in possession of such exotic animals/ birds be forthwith prosecuted for violation under the Customs Act by Department of Revenue Intelligence and under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
The Advisory is an executive direction to maintain inventory of exotic species and regulate the import of such species. The exemption that is provided in the Advisory is limited to dispensation with explanation of the source of exotic species. Consequence of non-declaration within the time stipulated in the Advisory is that the owner of exotic species is required to comply with all requisite documentation under the extant laws and regulations.
A bench of Chief Justice Mr. Indrajit Mahanty and Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay held that “there is no change in the statutory provisions in this regard to the period pre or post-advisory. The judgment dated 11.09.2019 of Bombay High Court in the matter of Anil Naidu Versus UOI (Writ Petition No. 807 of 2019) as well as the judgment dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dinesh Chandra Versus UOI (PIL Civil 22903 of 2019), which clarify the position in regard to the inapplicability of the penal provisions of Wild Life Act, 1972 and the Customs Act 1962 in regard to exotic species continue to apply as per extant laws and regulations despite advisory dated 11.06.2020.”
“Despite the above settled legal position continuing even for the undeclared stock of exotic species, court can neither legislate, nor direct Government to legislate in a particular manner. The Court cannot direct the Central Government to forthwith make amendments against legislative will to include all exotic species in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and also in the Notifications issued under Section 11B, 123 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Court can neither direct seizure/ confiscation contrary to existing provisions, nor can direct change in classification of such bailable offence to non-bailable offence, to enable arrest and prosecution of all the persons concerned with such undeclared stock of exotic animals / exotic birds,” the Court said.
Concluding the judgment, the Court added that “Large number of citizens across the country commonly own pets such as dogs, cats, birds, rabbits etc which may also belong to exotic species and might have been purchased or procured from those involved in captive breeding. Such pets may number in millions and also breed. We have considered the submissions of the petitioner about suggested wiping out of the distinction between exotic species and indigenous species by directing or at least recommending amendments in the two Acts. We are of the view that we can neither direct, nor expect the Government to take such drastic steps in haste, without assessment of impact and without detailed study. Such amendments in statutory provisions which may result in drastic penal action against common man cannot be directed or even recommended as prayed by the petitioner. The petitioner effectively wants that even all such exotic pets in domestic possession will have to be forfeited and housed by government and their owners shall be arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted under wild life Act and compelled to disclose the source under Customs Act, 1962. The step suggested by the petitioner will have very wide and far reaching ramifications. We cannot lose sight of the facts that most people possessing such exotic species are animal lovers and over time such exotic species become a part of the family like a child in the house. There are sufficient safeguards available in law to prevent cruelty to animals which are also applicable to exotic species. Directing the amendments in the tow Acts as suggested or even to suggest the Respondents to legislate such amendments, would lead to chaos and no public purpose will be achieved. Even otherwise in light of the judgments discussed above the Court cannot direct the Central Government and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes to forthwith make amendments against legislative will to include all exotic species in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and also in the Notifications issued under Section 11B, 123 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Court can neither direct seizure/ confiscation contrary to existing provisions, nor can direct change I classification of such bailable offence to non-bailable offence, to enable arrest and prosecution of all the persons concerned with such undeclared stock of exotic animals / exotic birds.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
