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

Date of the Judgment: 17 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 255

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

Can a person claim ownership of a wildlife article if they declare it after the deadline? 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 revolves around the interpretation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, specifically whether the 180-day limit to declare possession of wildlife articles is strict or can be relaxed. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from the discovery of a deer horn in the appellant’s house. Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, possessing such an article requires declaration to the authorities. Section 40 of the Act mandates that individuals possessing specified animal articles at the commencement of the Act must declare them within thirty days. Section 40A of the Act empowers the Central Government to require declarations of such articles, even if not previously declared under Section 40. In exercise of this power, the Central Government issued the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003.

The appellant, Vishalakshi Amma, found a deer horn in her old house. The Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, published on 18.04.2003, mandated that declarations for possession of wildlife articles be made within 180 days, which expired on 18.10.2003. The appellant filed her declaration on 25.05.2011, well beyond the stipulated period. Consequently, the authorities refused to issue an ownership certificate for the deer horn. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala.

The Single Judge directed the authorities to consider relaxing the time limit if it had been relaxed in other cases. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, stating that the time limit was mandatory and could not be relaxed. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala after the authorities refused to issue an ownership certificate for the deer horn, because the declaration was made beyond the 180-day period stipulated in Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the Chief Wild Life Warden to consider if the time limit had been relaxed in any other case and, if so, to consider the appellant’s case in that context.

The State of Kerala appealed this decision. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the 180-day time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003, was mandatory and could not be relaxed. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge, leading 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 specified animal articles at the commencement of the Act must declare them within thirty days. It states:
  
  “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 provision empowers the Central Government to require declarations of such articles, even if not previously declared under Section 40. It states:
  
  “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: These rules were framed under Section 40A of the Act. Rule 4(2) specifically prescribes a time limit of 180 days for filing declarations. It states:
  
  “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 Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003, is not mandatory and can be relaxed in certain cases.
• 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 if the application is made beyond the prescribed period, the authorities are still required to conduct an inquiry, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused by accepting a late application.
• The appellant relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in C.D. Gopinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2010 SCC Online Mad 2851), which purportedly supported the view that such time limits could be relaxed.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• 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 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Rules, 2003.
• The respondent contended that allowing relaxation of the time limit would frustrate the purpose of the Act and the Rules.
• The respondent emphasized that Section 40A allows for declarations to be made within a specific time, and this must be strictly adhered to.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the time limit of 180 days prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, for submitting an application/declaration for ownership certificate is mandatory or can be relaxed?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972* to understand the initial requirement for declaring possession of animal articles.
• The Court considered Section 40A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972* to understand the power of the Central Government to require declarations, even if not previously declared under Section 40.
• The Court considered Rule 3 of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003* to emphasize the duty of the authorities to publicize the notification and assist individuals in making declarations.
• The Court considered Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003* and held that the 180-day time limit for filing declarations is mandatory.
• The Court distinguished and disagreed with the view taken by the Madras High Court in C.D. Gopinath vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. [2010 SCC Online Mad 2851], holding that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003 is mandatory.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the object and purpose of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003. The Court emphasized that the 180-day time limit was not arbitrary but was intended to ensure that all individuals possessing wildlife articles would declare them within a reasonable period. The court also noted that Rule 3 of the Rules, 2003, mandated wide publicity and assistance to individuals, precluding any plea of ignorance.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, with less emphasis on the specific facts of the case. The court’s decision was driven by the need to ensure the effective implementation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Rules, 2003.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the time limit could be relaxed. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Rules, 2003, would be defeated if the time limit was not considered mandatory. The Court also noted that Rule 3 of the Rules, 2003, required the authorities to provide wide publicity and assistance, which would preclude any plea of ignorance. The Court held that if a person fails to file such declaration within the stipulated time, the ownership of such wildlife article shall vest with the Government.

The Supreme Court stated, “Looking to the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A and the object and purpose for which Rules, 2003 has been enacted the period of 180 days prescribed under Rule 4(2) has to be construed and considered as mandatory, otherwise the object and purpose of the Act, 1972 and the Rules, 2003 shall be frustrated.”

The Court also stated, “Thus, nobody can plead any ignorance and/or nobody can plead that he had no knowledge to make such declaration and/or application for ownership certificate and that too, within a period of 180 days as per Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003.”

The Court further stated, “Therefore, once a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or wildlife animal article, fails to file such declaration and/or fails to make any application within the stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) then the bar/rigour under Section 40 shall be applicable and the ownership of such wildlife animal article of which the declaration is not made shall vest in the Government/forest department.”

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 claim ownership.
• Failure to declare possession of wildlife articles within the stipulated time will result in the ownership of such articles vesting in the government.
• Authorities are obligated to provide wide publicity and assistance to local communities to ensure that they are aware of the requirements for declaring possession of wildlife articles.

This judgment reinforces the strict enforcement of wildlife protection laws and emphasizes the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits. It also highlights the responsibility of authorities to ensure that all individuals are aware of their obligations under the law.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court simply dismissed the appeal, 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 cannot be relaxed. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding the declaration of wildlife articles and reinforces the strict approach that must be taken in enforcing wildlife protection laws. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Vishalakshi Amma, upholding the decision of the High Court of Kerala. The Court held that the 180-day time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, for declaring possession of wildlife articles is mandatory and cannot be relaxed. This judgment emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and its associated rules, ensuring the effective implementation of wildlife protection laws.