Supreme Court Upholds Mandatory Time Limit for Wildlife Stock Declaration: Vishalakshi Amma vs. State of Kerala (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 March 2023

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1720 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 15232 of 2020)

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Manoj Misra, J.

Can an individual claim ownership of a deer horn found in their old house, years after the deadline for declaring such possessions has passed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the mandatory nature of time limits for declaring possession of wildlife articles. This case, Vishalakshi Amma vs. State of Kerala, revolves around the interpretation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the associated rules regarding the declaration of wildlife stock. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Manoj Misra, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The appellant, Vishalakshi Amma, discovered a deer horn in her old house. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, mandates that individuals possessing certain animal articles, like deer horns, must declare them to the Chief Wild Life Warden. The Central Government, under Section 40A of the Act, framed the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003. These rules stipulated that declarations must be made within 180 days of the rules’ publication. The rules were published on 18.04.2003, setting the deadline for declarations as 18.10.2003. However, Vishalakshi Amma filed her declaration on 25.05.2011, which was well beyond the prescribed deadline. The authorities refused to issue an ownership certificate, citing the delay. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, which was initially disposed of by a Single Judge directing the authorities to consider relaxing the time limit. This order was appealed by the State before the Division Bench of the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala directed the Chief Wild Life Warden to consider whether the time limit for granting ownership certificates had been relaxed in any other case. If such a relaxation was found, the appellant’s case was to be considered in that light. The State of Kerala appealed this order before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge’s order, holding that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003, was mandatory and could not be relaxed or extended. This decision of the Division Bench led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the following legal provisions:

• Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This section mandates that individuals possessing captive animals listed in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, or any animal article like a deer horn, must declare it within thirty days of the Act’s commencement. It also prohibits acquiring or possessing such items without prior permission from the Chief Wild Life Warden. The relevant portion of the provision is:

  “every person having at the commencement of this Act the control, custody or possession of any captive animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or animal article…… or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, shall, within thirty days from the commencement of this Act, declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer the number and description of the animal, or article of the foregoing description under his control, custody or possession and the place where such animal or article is kept.”

• Section 40A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This section provides an exception, allowing the Central Government to require declarations of wildlife articles even if not previously declared under Section 40.

  “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 40 of this Act, the Central Government may, by notification, require any person to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer, any captive animal, animal article….. in his control, custody or possession, in respect of which no declaration had been made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of Section 40, in such form, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed.”

• The Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003: Framed under Section 40A of the Act, these rules specify the procedure for declaring wildlife stock. Rule 4(2) mandates that applications for declaration must be made within 180 days from the date of the rules’ publication.

  “The application under sub-rule (1) shall be presented in four complete sets within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of publication of these rules.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003, is not mandatory and can be relaxed.
• It was contended that the deer horn was found in an old house, and the appellant only became aware of it in 2011.
• The appellant submitted that even after an application for an ownership certificate, the authority must conduct an inquiry, thus, no prejudice would be caused by accepting an application made beyond the 180-day period.
• The appellant relied on the Madras High Court’s decision in C.D. Gopinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which purportedly supported the view that the time limit could be relaxed.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the time limit under Rule 4(2) is mandatory, given the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A of the Act, 1972, and the Rules, 2003.
• It was submitted that allowing applications beyond the 180-day limit would frustrate the purpose of the Act and the rules.
• The respondent contended that the rules were framed to ensure the declaration of wildlife articles, and the time limit was crucial for effective implementation.

The core of the appellant’s argument was that the time limit was directory, not mandatory, and that the authorities should consider the circumstances of the case. The respondent, on the other hand, insisted on the strict adherence to the time limit to maintain the integrity of the Act and its objectives.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, is mandatory or directory?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This section mandates the declaration of possession of certain wildlife articles.
• Section 40A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This section empowers the Central Government to require declarations of wildlife articles.
• The Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003: These rules specify the procedure for declaring wildlife stock, including the 180-day time limit under Rule 4(2).
• C.D. Gopinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010 SCC Online Mad 2851): A decision of the Madras High Court, which was relied upon by the appellant. The Supreme Court did not agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Section 40 and 40A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 to emphasize the importance of the time limit for declaration.
• The Court did not agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in C.D. Gopinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010 SCC Online Mad 2851), stating that the time limit under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003 is not directory.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the legislative intent behind the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the 180-day time limit for declaring wildlife stock, stating that any relaxation would frustrate the purpose of the Act. The Court also highlighted the duty of the authorities to widely publicize the rules and assist individuals in making declarations, implying that ignorance of the rules was not a valid excuse for delay. The Court’s reasoning was focused on ensuring the effective implementation of wildlife protection measures.

The Court’s decision was primarily based on legal considerations, with a focus on the interpretation of the relevant statutes and rules. The factual aspects of the case, such as the appellant’s claim of discovering the deer horn later, were given less weight.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The 180-day time limit for declaring possession of wildlife articles under the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, is mandatory and cannot be relaxed.
• Individuals possessing wildlife articles must adhere strictly to the prescribed time limits to avoid penalties.
• Ignorance of the rules is not a valid excuse for failing to declare possession of wildlife articles within the stipulated time.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of strict adherence to legal timelines in environmental and wildlife protection laws.
• This decision may impact future cases involving similar declarations and time limits under environmental laws.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, is mandatory and not directory. This judgment clarifies that the courts will strictly interpret and apply the time limits set in environmental laws, especially those related to wildlife protection. The Supreme Court’s decision has reaffirmed the importance of strict adherence to legal timelines in environmental and wildlife protection laws. The Court has overruled the view taken by the Madras High Court in C.D. Gopinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010 SCC Online Mad 2851), which had held that the time limit could be relaxed. This decision sets a precedent for future cases involving similar declarations and time limits under environmental laws.

Conclusion

In Vishalakshi Amma vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that the 180-day time limit for declaring possession of wildlife articles under the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, is mandatory. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that strict adherence to legal timelines is crucial for effective wildlife protection. This judgment reinforces the importance of compliance with environmental regulations and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.