Smt. Adwitiya Chakrabarti vs. Union Of Indaia And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the possession of undeclared exotic animals/birds within India continues to be outside the purview of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It was also held that there is no reverse burden to prove licit importation as such species are not included in notifications under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Furthermore, undeclared exotic animals/birds are outside the purview of Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the detection of illegally imported goods. The offense concerning exotic live species under the Customs Act, 1962, remains bailable under Section 104(7) in the absence of a notification under Section 135(1)(i)(c) classifying them as prohibited goods. The Court cannot legislate or direct the government to legislate amendments to include exotic species in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, or relevant Customs Act notifications. The Court also cannot direct seizure/confiscation contrary to existing provisions or change the classification of bailable offenses to non-bailable. The Court found that directing such drastic legislative changes without assessment of impact and detailed study, especially concerning common pet owners, would lead to chaos and serve no public purpose. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that failure to arrest/prosecute persons who could not make declarations does not frustrate the Advisory's purpose, and any presumption of illegal import without evidence would violate constitutional rights.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Adwitiya Chakrabarti, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a writ of Mandamus. The petition aimed to declare the possession of all exotic animals/birds, other than those voluntarily disclosed under an advisory dated June 11, 2020, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as illegal. The petitioner sought prosecution of offenders under the Customs Act by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioner relied on news articles indicating a proliferation of exotic wildlife trade and argued that the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Customs Act, 1962, did not adequately cover exotic species, especially after the advisory. The respondents included various government bodies such as the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Chief Wild Life Warden, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Customs and GST Board.

Key Issues

1. Whether the possession of exotic animals/birds, not voluntarily disclosed as per the Advisory dated June 11, 2020, is illegal and warrants prosecution under the Customs Act and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the interpretation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Customs Act, 1962, and the scope of the Advisory). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that failing to prosecute individuals possessing undeclared exotic species defeats the purpose of the Advisory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution by treating compliant and non-compliant citizens equally. They contended that previous High Court judgments (Anil Naidu, Dinesh Chandra, Imran Latif) predated the Advisory and that amendments are necessary to include exotic species in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and relevant Customs Act notifications to prevent smuggling and possession. The petitioner sought directions for legislative amendments to make possession of undeclared exotic species a non-bailable offense and allow for arrest and prosecution. Revenue/State's contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments presented by the respondents, but it extensively discusses and relies on previous judgments of the Allahabad High Court, which the respondents implicitly support by their stance.