Export ban on shark fins upheld where stricter domestic conservation measures and reasonable ecological classification justified the restriction.

A statutory ban on export of shark fins was upheld because CITES permits stricter domestic measures and does not prevent a wider municipal prohibition. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 operate in different fields, so a wildlife-law prohibition on hunting did not limit the power to restrict exports under trade law. The Article 14 challenge also failed: the ban was introduced after inter-departmental consultation, was supported by ecological concerns and the precautionary principle, and the domestic-consumption/export distinction was treated as a reasonable classification. The Madras HC sustained the total export ban.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification banning export of shark fins of all species was invalid for being contrary to CITES and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. (ii) Whether the notification was arbitrary or unreasonable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, including on the grounds of the decision-making process and lack of transitional arrangements.

Issue (i): Whether the notification banning export of shark fins of all species was invalid for being contrary to CITES and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Analysis: The Convention itself permits stricter domestic measures and even complete prohibition. The mere fact that only a limited number of shark species are expressly protected under the Convention does not prevent a member country from imposing a wider ban under its municipal law. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 operate in different fields, and the prohibition on hunting under the wildlife law does not exhaust the power to prohibit export under the foreign trade law. The notification was issued in exercise of the statutory power under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and there was no conflict between the wildlife regime and the foreign trade regime.

Conclusion: The challenge based on CITES and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 failed, and the notification was valid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification was arbitrary or unreasonable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, including on the grounds of the decision-making process and lack of transitional arrangements.

Analysis: The decision to impose the ban was taken after inter-departmental consultation and consideration of ecological concerns, including depletion of shark populations and the need to protect the marine ecosystem. Absence of an officer from one department, participation of a non-governmental representative, and the absence of precise scientific quantification did not vitiate the decision. The measure was supported by the precautionary principle and the distinction between domestic consumption and export was held to be a reasonable classification. The plea regarding lack of transitional arrangements was also rejected for want of supporting particulars and in view of the policy framework governing restrictions.

Conclusion: The notification was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and the Article 14 challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was devoid of merit, and the impugned notification sustaining a total ban on export of shark fins was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory export restriction may validly impose a stricter prohibition than an international convention or wildlife schedule, and such a measure will not be struck down if it is founded on ecological considerations and a reasonable classification rather than arbitrariness.

---