Ivory trade prohibition upheld as a reasonable restriction, while un-certified stock retention and contrary administrative guidelines were struck down.

The Wild Life (Protection) Act amendments banning trade in imported ivory were upheld as a reasonable restriction in public interest to protect wildlife, prevent poaching and conserve ecology; the challenge under Articles 19(1)(g), 14 and 300A failed. The Court construed Chapter VA as a complete regulatory code and held that a dealer could retain ivory only to the limited extent permitted under Section 49C on declaration and certificate of ownership; un-certified stock could not be kept, sold, offered for sale or transferred. Administrative guidelines allowing limited release and destruction of seized articles were inconsistent with the Act and invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 prohibiting trade in imported ivory were unconstitutional as offending Articles 19(1)(g), 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether a trader who had lawfully imported ivory before the prohibition could retain possession or obtain ownership in respect of the stock under Section 49C of the Act; and (iii) whether the Central Government's guidelines directing limited release and destruction of seized articles were valid under Section 63 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the amendments to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 prohibiting trade in imported ivory were unconstitutional as offending Articles 19(1)(g), 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The prohibition was examined in the context of the Act's object of protecting wildlife and preventing poaching and illegal trade. The restriction on ivory trade was treated as a measure in public interest aimed at conservation of elephants and ecological protection. The Court held that prohibition can constitute a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) when the trade is harmful to public interest. The classification between traders and non-traders was found to rest on an intelligible differentia, and the attack based on vagueness or arbitrariness was rejected. The property contention under Article 300A also failed because the statute validly regulated possession and did not mandate compensation in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The amendments were held constitutional and valid, and the challenge under Articles 19(1)(g), 14 and 300A failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a trader who had lawfully imported ivory before the prohibition could retain possession or obtain ownership in respect of the stock under Section 49C of the Act.

Analysis: The provisions of Chapter VA were construed as a self-contained code governing dealers in ivory imported into India. The Court held that Section 49C permitted only limited retention for bona fide personal use upon declaration and issuance of a certificate of ownership, while Section 49C(7) prohibited any un-certified stock from being kept, sold, offered for sale or transferred. The Court also held that the doctrine of res extra commercium had no application, but that possession could be restricted by necessary implication where the statute validly prohibited trade. On this construction, the traders had no unrestricted right to retain the ivory stock.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to retain possession of the ivory except to the extent permitted under Section 49C, and the stock without ownership certificate could not be lawfully possessed for trade or transfer.

Issue (iii): Whether the Central Government's guidelines directing limited release and destruction of seized articles were valid under Section 63 of the Act.

Analysis: The Court held that the statutory scheme did not confer unguided power to permit only one item and destroy the rest. The guidelines were found inconsistent with the clear language of Section 49C and the rule-making power under Section 63. The statutory remedies under Section 49C remained available, but the administrative directions could not override the Act.

Conclusion: The guidelines were held invalid and unenforceable.

Final Conclusion: The statutory ban on ivory trade and the limited possession regime were upheld, but the impugned administrative guidelines were struck down as inconsistent with the Act, and the appeals were dismissed with directions that the seized articles be preserved and not destroyed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory prohibition on trade and possession of a wildlife product enacted to protect ecology and prevent poaching constitutes a reasonable restriction in public interest, and possession may be curtailed by necessary implication where the Act creates a complete regulatory code.

---