In a major setback for Malayalam cinema superstar Mohanlal, the Kerala High Court on Friday cancelled the ownership certificates the State government issued to him for possessing elephant tusks. The court declared the certificates “illegal and unenforceable in law,” effectively invalidating the government’s 2016 attempt to regularize the actor’s possession of the banned animal articles.
The ruling culminates a legal battle that began in 2012 when authorities first discovered the ivory at the actor’s home. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court, comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, delivered the judgment on two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the legality of the State’s administrative orders.
The controversy traces its roots back to December 2011, when Income Tax officials conducted a raid at Mohanlal’s residence in Thevara, Ernakulam. During the search, they discovered two pairs of elephant tusks and several ivory artifacts. At that time, the actor did not possess the mandatory ownership certificate required under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, for such items.
The Forest Department subsequently registered a case against the actor under the Wildlife Protection Act for illegal possession. However, the State government later intervened on the actor’s behalf, issuing notifications in 2015 and 2016 that effectively granted Mohanlal retrospective ownership and immunity from prosecution. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests then issued the formal ownership certificates.
The PIL petitioners, including a former Forest Officer, challenged this administrative move, arguing the certificates were granted through procedural flaws and collusion to legalize what they maintained was unlawfully held contraband.
The High Court focused its ruling heavily on the State government’s failure to adhere to the strict statutory requirements of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Specifically, the Bench noted that the government had failed to publish the necessary notification in the official gazette, a step the law explicitly mandates for granting immunity or allowing a declaration of possession under Section 40(4) of the Act.
The Bench categorically rejected the State’s contention that providing “adequate publicity through other means” substituted the legal requirement of gazette publication.
“We therefore conclude by holding that the government orders dated December 16, 2015, and February 17, 2016, are void ab initio and legally unenforceable,” the court ruled. The judgment firmly establishes that an administrative authority cannot bypass mandatory procedures when exercising special powers to grant legal protection for possessing wildlife articles.
While the High Court struck down the ownership certificates, it deliberately refrained from commenting on the petitioners’ specific allegations regarding the manner in which the ownership power was exercised.
The Bench acknowledged that a separate criminal case is still pending against Mohanlal and three others before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Perumbavoor. The court stated that any detailed finding on the legality of the possession itself could prejudice the actor in the ongoing criminal trial.
This means that while the actor no longer holds a valid certificate to possess the ivory, the criminal prosecution against him for the initial illegal possession of the tusks must still run its course in the lower court.
Despite the significant judicial quashing of the certificates, the Kerala High Court clarified that the State government retains the liberty to issue a fresh notification.
The Bench observed that the government may proceed to issue a new notification, strictly in accordance with Section 40(4) of the Wildlife Protection Act, if it intends to confer the statutory immunity or benefits to the actor. This provision allows the State to request any person to declare possession of wild animal articles before granting ownership.
This high-profile ruling serves as a firm directive to the State administration on strict compliance with environmental laws, highlighting that a celebrity’s status does not allow for circumventing due process.
Mohanlal, who was recently seen in the prequel L2: Empuraan, co-starring Prithviraj Sukumaran and is gearing up for his next epic film, Vrusshabha, now faces a renewed challenge to his long-held claim of legal ownership over the controversial artifacts.
