TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds exclusion of exotic animals from Wildlife Act, allows domestic trade</h1> <h3>Dinesh Chandra Versus U.O.I. Thru Addl. Prin. Chief Conservator Of Forest (C), Lko&Ors</h3> Dinesh Chandra Versus U.O.I. Thru Addl. Prin. Chief Conservator Of Forest (C), Lko&Ors - TMI Issues Involved:1. Implementation of CITES provisions in India.2. Amendments to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and Customs Act, 1962.3. Regulation of domestic trade, possession, and breeding of exotic animals/birds.4. Collection of breeding, trade, and census data of exotic animals/birds.5. Jurisdiction and enforcement by Customs and Wildlife Authorities.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Implementation of CITES Provisions in India:The petitioner sought directions for the Central Government to implement CITES provisions and amend relevant statutes to enable the seizure, confiscation, regulation, restriction, and prohibition of domestic trade, possession, and breeding of exotic animals/birds. The court noted that India is a signatory to CITES, which aims to ensure that international trade in wild animals does not threaten their existence. However, CITES itself does not prohibit stricter domestic measures, and thus, there is no bar to enacting strict provisions for domestic trade and possession of exotic animals/birds.2. Amendments to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and Customs Act, 1962:The petitioner argued that the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 does not cover exotic animals/birds, leading to unregulated domestic trade and breeding. The court observed that the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2013, which proposed to regulate the possession, breeding, and domestic trade of exotic species, was introduced but never enacted into law. The court emphasized that legislative intent and decisions of the government cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and no direction can be issued to the government to amend the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 or the Customs Act, 1962.3. Regulation of Domestic Trade, Possession, and Breeding of Exotic Animals/Birds:The court acknowledged that domestic trade, possession, and breeding of exotic animals/birds within India are not governed or restricted by the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Customs Act, 1962, and Foreign Trade Policy regulate only international trade. The court noted that there is no requirement to maintain statutory records of possession, acquisition, storage, captive breeding, and domestic trade of exotic animals/birds within India under the existing legal framework.4. Collection of Breeding, Trade, and Census Data of Exotic Animals/Birds:The petitioner sought directions for the collection of breeding, trade, and census data of exotic animals/birds to ascertain their status. The court noted that the petitioner relied on various documents, including the CITES Annual Report and instructions from the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, to highlight the lack of jurisdiction and control over exotic animals/birds. However, the court did not find merit in issuing directions for data collection, as it falls within the domain of the executive.5. Jurisdiction and Enforcement by Customs and Wildlife Authorities:The court clarified that at the point of import/export, Customs/DRI officers have jurisdiction to detect and prevent smuggling of live animals and birds, subjecting violators to penal and confiscatory provisions under the Customs Act, 1962. However, the enforcement of CITES provisions within India is carried out by State/UT Wildlife Departments under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The court emphasized that there is no statutory presumption that all exotic animals/birds in India are smuggled, and mere possession or acquisition does not invite penal consequences under the Customs Act, 1962.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, stating that the Central Government's decision to keep exotic animals/birds out of the purview of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and permit their domestic trade, possession, and breeding cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The court also highlighted that there is no restriction on domestic trade, keeping, captive breeding, buying, selling, and exhibiting exotic animals/birds within India under the existing legal framework.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
