Court upholds Voluntary Disclosure Scheme for exotic species, affirming legality of domestic trade and Customs jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. It emphasized the scheme's aim to encourage voluntary disclosure and establish a unified information system for exotic species. The court affirmed the legality of domestic trading and possession of exotic species and confirmed Customs/DRI officers' jurisdiction in preventing smuggling. Government actions against declared exotic species within the six-month window were deemed illegal and against the scheme's objectives.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the immunity promised under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme.
2. Requirement of documentation for declared exotic species.
3. Jurisdiction of Customs/DRI officers in detecting and preventing smuggling of exotic species.
4. Legal position regarding domestic trading, possession, and breeding of exotic species.
5. Legitimacy of government actions against declared exotic species during the six-month window.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Immunity Promised Under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme:
The petitioner challenged the immunity promised under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, arguing that it should not prevent investigations into the acquisition or possession of exotic species. The court noted that the scheme aims to develop an inventory of exotic live species within India and regulate their import and possession. The scheme provides immunity for declarations made within a six-month window, which is in the wider public interest. The court emphasized that during this period, any inquiry or action against the possession, breeding, or transportation of exotic species would be illegal and contrary to the scheme's purpose.

2. Requirement of Documentation for Declared Exotic Species:
The scheme specifies that declarants are not required to produce documentation for exotic live species declared within the six-month window. After this period, compliance with documentation requirements under existing laws is mandatory. The court upheld this provision, stating that it is designed to encourage voluntary disclosure and create a unified information system for exotic species.

3. Jurisdiction of Customs/DRI Officers in Detecting and Preventing Smuggling of Exotic Species:
The court reaffirmed that Customs/DRI officers have jurisdiction to detect and prevent the smuggling of live animals and birds at the point of import/export. They can seize smuggled exotic species and subject the concerned persons to penal and confiscatory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. This jurisdiction remains unaffected by the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme.

4. Legal Position Regarding Domestic Trading, Possession, and Breeding of Exotic Species:
The court referred to an earlier judgment (PIL Civil No. 22903 of 2019) which established that exotic birds/animals do not fall under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. There are no specific rules or permissions required for dealing with exotic animals bred in India. The court reiterated that there is no restriction on domestic trade, possession, or captive breeding of exotic species under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Customs Act, 1962, or Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1962.

5. Legitimacy of Government Actions Against Declared Exotic Species During the Six-Month Window:
The court held that any government action against the possession, breeding, or transportation of exotic species declared within the six-month window would be illegal and arbitrary. The Voluntary Disclosure Scheme's immunity must be respected by all government departments to promote voluntary disclosure in the public interest. The court emphasized that dragging declarants into penal or confiscatory measures for voluntarily declared stock during this period would be unreasonable and contrary to legitimate expectations.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme's provisions, emphasizing the scheme's purpose of encouraging voluntary disclosure and creating a unified information system for exotic species. The court reiterated the legal position regarding the domestic trade and possession of exotic species and confirmed the jurisdiction of Customs/DRI officers in preventing smuggling at the point of import/export. The petitioner's request for directions was denied, and the court emphasized that government actions against declared exotic species during the six-month window would be illegal and contrary to the scheme's purpose.

---