Wildlife protection covers seafans as aquatic coral, making the export ban legally sustainable

Seafans were treated as an aquatic form of coral within the animal kingdom and therefore capable of falling within the statutory meanings of "wild animal" and "wild life" under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. On that broad reading of the definitions, the export prohibition covering wild animals was held to extend to seafans, making the ban legally sustainable. The environmental harm associated with coral exploitation was also noted as supporting the restriction. The writ challenge to the export ban accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether seafans fall within the expressions "wild animal" and "wild life" under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and whether the prohibition on their export was valid.

Analysis: The definitions in Section 2(36) and Section 2(37) were read broadly to include aquatic animals and forms of coral. Seafans were treated as an aquatic form of coral belonging to the animal kingdom and, therefore, as part of wild life and wild animals. Since the negative list of exports prohibited all forms of wild animals, the export restriction was held to be consistent with the statutory scheme. The environmental impact of coral exploitation was also treated as supporting the prohibition.

Conclusion: The ban on export of seafans was upheld and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because seafans were held to be covered by the statutory protection applicable to wild animals and wild life, making the export prohibition sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Aquatic coral forms that belong to the animal kingdom can fall within the statutory concept of wild life and wild animals, and an export ban covering all forms of wild animals is valid when applied to such items.

---