Shark fin export ban upheld as legal and constitutional, petitioner allowed to clear existing stock

The court upheld the ban on shark fin exports, finding it legal and constitutional. It dismissed the writ appeal challenging the ban, stating that the government's decision was aimed at protecting marine life and ecological balance. The court allowed the petitioner to clear its accumulated stock of shark fins until a specified date but prohibited future exports.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and constitutionality of the ban on shark fin export.
2. Ultra vires nature of the notification under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
3. Alleged infringement of the fundamental right to trade.
4. Adequacy of government consultation and decision-making process.
5. Judicial review of policy decisions and subordinate legislation.
6. Public interest and ecological considerations.
7. Allegations of discrimination and arbitrariness in the ban.
8. Adjustment of equities regarding accumulated stock of shark fins.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Constitutionality of the Ban on Shark Fin Export:
The Central Government, through a notification, banned the export of shark fins, citing environmental and ecological concerns. The petitioner, a marine produce exporter, challenged this ban, arguing that it was illegal and unconstitutional. The court examined whether the government's action was sustainable under the relevant statutes.

2. Ultra Vires Nature of the Notification:
The petitioner argued that the notification was ultra vires under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The court noted that the government has the power under Section 5 to formulate and amend the foreign trade policy in public interest. The notification was issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, exercising delegated powers under the Act.

3. Alleged Infringement of the Fundamental Right to Trade:
The petitioner contended that the ban affected its fundamental right to trade. The court acknowledged that while the petitioner had a right to trade, this right could be regulated in public interest. The court found that the ban was a policy decision aimed at protecting marine life and was not arbitrary or discriminatory.

4. Adequacy of Government Consultation and Decision-Making Process:
The petitioner alleged that the Ministry of Environment and Forests was not consulted before issuing the notification, and that the decision was influenced by an NGO and a minister known for her pro-animal stance. The court noted that the decision-making process involved various government departments and experts, and the inclusion of an NGO did not invalidate the decision.

5. Judicial Review of Policy Decisions and Subordinate Legislation:
The court emphasized that policy decisions are generally not subject to judicial interference unless they violate constitutional safeguards or statutory prescriptions. The court held that the notification was a piece of subordinate legislation and was subject to judicial review on grounds of arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or violation of fundamental rights.

6. Public Interest and Ecological Considerations:
The government argued that the ban was in public interest, citing difficulties in distinguishing between prohibited and non-prohibited species of sharks during fishing. The court found that the government had adequately demonstrated that the ban was necessary to protect marine life and ecological balance.

7. Allegations of Discrimination and Arbitrariness in the Ban:
The petitioner claimed that the ban was discriminatory as it applied only to export and not to domestic consumption. The court held that the ban was justified as shark meat was not a staple food in India, and the primary concern was the practice of finning, which led to ecological degradation.

8. Adjustment of Equities Regarding Accumulated Stock of Shark Fins:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that it had accumulated stock of shark fins pending the writ appeal. To adjust equities, the court allowed the petitioner to clear the stock accumulated until 31-12-2017, ensuring that no additional stock would be exported beyond that date.

Conclusion:
The court found no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the writ appeal. The court allowed the petitioner to clear the accumulated stock of shark fins up to a specified date but upheld the ban on future exports. No order was made on costs.

---