2022 (9) TMI 1207 - SC - Indian Laws

Legality and validity of the notification dated 11.06.2020 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change - advisory for dealing with import of exotic live species of animals and birds in India and declaration of stock - HELD THAT - The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in DINESH CHANDRA VERSUS U.O.I. THRU. ADDL. PRIN. CHIEF. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST OTHERS 2020 (7) TMI 750 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT is a complete answer to the present PIL filed by the petitioner. Any interpretation to the contrary as suggested by the petitioner would defeat the very object of the Advisory. Once a declaration within the window of six months as provided under the Advisory is made, the exotic live species, including its progeny, the declarant or transferee(s) are fully exempt from explaining the source of exotic live species. The exotic live species which is declared or its progeny, are not liable to confiscation or seizure by any Central Agency or State Agency. Consequently, the declarant or the transferee(s) of such declarant will be immune from prosecution under any civil, fiscal and criminal statute by any Central or State Agency. Any other interpretation would lead to absurdity. However, any declaration made after the expiry of the window under the Advisory shall carry no such exemption and the declarer shall have to comply with all requisite documentation under the extant laws and regulations. Writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the legality and validity of a notification regarding import of exotic live species of animals and birds in India.

Analysis:
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change regarding the import of exotic live species of animals and birds in India. The notification was in the form of an advisory. Various High Courts had previously considered challenges to the same advisory on similar grounds and upheld it. Judgments from the Delhi High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Meghalaya High Court, and Allahabad High Court were cited as examples where the advisory was upheld. The Supreme Court reviewed these judgments and agreed with their findings. A Special Leave Petition filed against the Allahabad High Court judgment was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the advisory provided a specific window for making declarations regarding exotic live species, and any interpretation contrary to this would defeat the purpose of the advisory. Declarations made within the specified time frame granted immunity from prosecution under various statutes to the declarant or transferee(s). However, declarations made after the expiry of the window would not enjoy the same exemptions and would require compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition based on the above observations.