High court refuses to stay Kerala wildlife amendment rules allowing declaration of animal trophies, ivory

Kochi: High court has declined to stay the operation of the notification introducing the Kerala Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Rules, 2026, which permitted film actor Mohanlal to declare the ivory tusks and artefacts in his possession and led to the issuance of an ownership certificate for the ivory items.A bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V M Syam Kumar was considering a PIL filed by James Mathew of Kalanjoor in Pathanamthitta, challenging the notification issued on March 4, amending the rules. HC, however, clarified that any declaration made or immunity extended pursuant to the notification shall be subject to the outcome of the petition.Earlier, the petitioner, along with another individual, had challenged the govt orders (GOs) and the issuance of ownership certificates to Mohanlal for two ivory tusks and 13 ivory artefacts in his possession. A division bench had quashed the ownership certificates issued by the state govt, along with the GOs that permitted him to declare possession as part of the certification process. The bench noted that the notifications issued by the state permitting Mohanlal to submit declarations under Section 40(1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, were not published in the official gazette, as mandated under Section 40(4) of the Act. HC had further clarified that the state is at liberty to issue a fresh notification under Section 40(4) to confer the immunity envisaged under the provision on persons or classes of persons covered by the statute.Subsequently, the state govt issued a fresh notification prompting the petitioner to approach HC again. Under the amended rules, the declaration is to be made within 45 days from the date of commencement of the amended rules, replacing the earlier provision that required such declarations to be made on or before Sept 30, 1991. The petitioner challenged the notification and subsequent proceedings, contending that they were contrary to the judgment of the apex court in the Vishalakshi Amma vs State of Kerala case. He further argued that the notification is impermissible, as the central govt has already prescribed the time limit within which such declarations must be made.HC observed that the state govt had acted pursuant to the directions issued by the coordinate bench, as the earlier GOs were not notified in accordance with law. Noting that the state appeared to have acted bona fide based on the earlier judgment, HC declined to stay the operation of the notification. However, considering the legal issues involved, it directed the state govt to file a detailed affidavit by May 25 and posted the matter for further consideration in June.