Export ban on shark fins upheld as valid delegated trade policy grounded in ecological protection and limited judicial review.

A notification banning export of all shark fins was examined as subordinate legislation under delegated foreign trade power and was upheld because it was supported by public-interest and ecological concerns. The court treated the measure as open to limited judicial review only for conflict with the parent statute, inconsistency with other law, or manifest arbitrariness, and found none. It accepted the government's material on conservation needs, difficulty in identifying shark species at sea, and prevention of indiscriminate finning. The challenge based on lack of wider departmental consultation and the presence of a non-governmental participant in the policy process also failed, and stricter domestic trade restrictions were held capable of operating alongside international CITES obligations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification banning export of all shark fins was ultra vires the statutory power under the foreign trade law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Central Government was empowered under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 to formulate and amend the foreign trade policy by notification, and the policy itself reserved power for amendment in public interest. The impugned notification was treated as subordinate legislation and was therefore open to judicial review, but only on limited grounds such as conflict with the parent statute, inconsistency with another statute, or manifest arbitrariness. The Court held that the Government had placed material showing ecological concerns, difficulty in identifying shark species at sea, and the need to prevent indiscriminate finning. It further held that the policy choice was not vitiated by absence of consultation with every department suggested by the petitioner, nor by the presence of a non-governmental representative in the deliberative meeting. The Court also held that international trade obligations under CITES could not override stricter domestic measures and that a domestic policy restricting export could validly be more stringent than the Wildlife regime.

Conclusion: The notification was upheld as a valid exercise of power, not shown to be arbitrary or ultra vires, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy notification issued under delegated statutory power, when supported by public interest and ecological reasons, is not liable to be struck down merely because a less restrictive alternative was possible or because the court might have preferred a different policy choice.

---