2003 (8) TMI 221 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court Affirms Ivory Ban under Wildlife Act

Balram Kumawat Versus Union of India and others (and another appeal)

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's judgment, ruling that 'mammoth ivory' falls under the definition of 'ivory imported in India' as per the ... Whether 'mammoth ivory' imported in India answers the description of the words 'ivory imported in India' contained in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended by Act No. 44 of 1991? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The submission of Mr. Parikh that in a case of this nature a restrictive meaning should be attributed to the word 'ivory' cannot be acceded to inasmuch as, in our opinion, the dictionary meaning should be adhered to for the purpose of giving effect to the purport and object of the Act. There is also no quarrel on the proposition of law laid down therein for the purpose of judging the constitutionality of the statutory provisions in the light of article 19 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Acts fulfil the said criteria. Issues Involved:1. Whether 'mammoth ivory' imported in India falls under the definition of 'ivory imported in India' as per the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended by Act No. 44 of 1991.2. Interpretation of the term 'ivory' in the context of the Act.3. Constitutional validity of the prohibition on trade in ivory.4. Applicability of the doctrine of proportionality and purposive construction in interpreting the statute.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether 'mammoth ivory' imported in India falls under the definition of 'ivory imported in India' as per the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended by Act No. 44 of 1991:The appellants contended that mammoth ivory, being from an extinct species, should not be classified under the term 'ivory imported in India' as per the Act. They argued that mammoth ivory is distinguishable from elephant ivory and is not banned under the Act or CITES. The court, however, held that the term 'ivory' as used in the Act includes all types of ivory, not just elephant ivory. The court emphasized that the intention of the Parliament was to impose a complete ban on trade in all forms of ivory to prevent poaching and protect endangered species.2. Interpretation of the term 'ivory' in the context of the Act:The court examined the dictionary definitions of 'ivory' and concluded that it encompasses the hard, white substance from the tusks of elephants, mammoths, and similar animals. The court stated, 'Ivory, therefore, even as per dictionary meaning, is not confined to elephant ivory.' The court further reasoned that the legislative intent was to include all forms of ivory to effectively curb illegal trade and poaching.3. Constitutional validity of the prohibition on trade in ivory:The court upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended. It ruled that the prohibition on trade in ivory is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The court stated, 'The impugned Act being not unreasonable does not also attract the wrath of article 14 of the Constitution of India.' The court emphasized that the complete prohibition on ivory trade is in line with the objectives of protecting endangered species and conserving wildlife.4. Applicability of the doctrine of proportionality and purposive construction in interpreting the statute:The court rejected the appellants' argument that a restrictive meaning should be given to the term 'ivory.' It applied the doctrine of purposive construction, interpreting the statute in a manner that aligns with its objectives. The court stated, 'The rule of strict construction does not also prevent the court in interpreting a statute according to its current meaning and applying the language to cover developments in science and technology not known at the time of passing of the statute.' The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to impose a comprehensive ban on all forms of ivory to prevent poaching and illegal trade.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Delhi High Court's judgment. The court concluded that the term 'ivory' in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, includes mammoth ivory and that the prohibition on ivory trade is constitutionally valid. The court emphasized the importance of interpreting the statute in a manner that fulfills its objectives of wildlife conservation and protection of endangered species. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.