Purposive interpretation of ivory ban extends statutory prohibition to mammoth fossil ivory and rejects narrow technical distinctions.

The Court construed "ivory" in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended, to cover ivory of every description, including mammoth fossil ivory, not only elephant ivory. Applying purposive and contextual interpretation, it held that the ordinary meaning of the term and the statute's object of preventing ivory trade and curbing elephant poaching required a broad reading rather than a narrow technical distinction between mammoth and elephant ivory. The resulting legal position is that trade in mammoth ivory falls within the statutory prohibition on ivory.

---

---

Issues: Whether mammoth ivory imported into India falls within the prohibition on trade in ivory under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended.

Analysis: The prohibition enacted by the amended law was construed as extending to ivory of every description, not merely elephant ivory. The expression "ivory" was given its ordinary and dictionary meaning, which includes mammoth fossil ivory, and the provision was read in the context of the statute as a whole to give effect to its object of preventing trade in ivory and curbing elephant poaching. The Court applied purposive and contextual construction and rejected a narrow reading based on technical distinction between mammoth and elephant ivory.

Conclusion: Mammoth ivory is covered by the statutory ban on ivory, and trade in it is prohibited. The challenge failed and was against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the language of a welfare or regulatory statute is clear and its object is to suppress a mischief, the court may construe the prohibited expression according to its ordinary and contextual meaning so as to advance the legislative purpose and not defeat it by a narrow or technical interpretation.

---