The bench further directed the state government to issue a fresh notification in accordance with proper procedure.
Published Oct 24, 2025 | 5:57 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 24, 2025 | 5:57 PM
Mohanlal. (Supplied)
Synopsis: With this verdict, the high court effectively nullified the ownership certificate issued by the Forest Department to Mohanlal in 2016, calling it legally unsustainable. The bench further directed the state government to issue a fresh notification in accordance with proper procedure.
In a major twist to one of Kerala’s most debated wildlife cases, the Kerala High Court on Friday, 24 October, set aside the state government’s decision that had legalised actor Mohanlal’s possession of ivory.
The court ruled that the 2015 government order regularising the possession was invalid, as it was never published in the official gazette, a mandatory legal requirement.
With this verdict, the high court effectively nullified the ownership certificate issued by the Forest Department to Mohanlal in 2016, calling it legally unsustainable. The bench further directed the state government to issue a fresh notification in accordance with proper procedure.
Further, referring to the writ petitions, which included a request for directions to the State authorities to expedite the ongoing criminal proceedings, the court noted, “we observe that the proceedings are already in progress. A Criminal Revision Petition and related Criminal Miscellaneous Cases arising from those proceedings are currently pending before this Court. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to entertain this request, and the prayer is accordingly rejected.”
The case dates back to 21 December, 2011 when IT officials discovered two pairs of elephant tusks during a raid at the actor’s residence in Thevara, Kochi.
Following this, the government allowed Mohanlal to declare the tusks under a 2015 notification.
Subsequently, the Chief wildlife warden granted him an ownership certificate on 16 January 2016.
However, questions were raised about the legality of this process. The government had earlier withdrawn the prosecution against the actor, but the Perumbavoor Magistrate Court intervened, cancelling the withdrawal and summoning Mohanlal to appear in person. The actor then approached the high court which granted an interim stay.
The final verdict, delivered on Friday, marks a significant setback for both the state government and Mohanlal, reopening a long-running controversy over the legal possession of ivory in Kerala.
The high court after hearing the arguments noted: “It appears that the State Government had issued notifications requiring the respondent actor to declare the ivory tusks and artifacts within a specified time, and the respondent duly complied with these notifications and obtained ownership certificates for the said items.”
It added, “The central question, however, is whether these notifications met the requirements of the 1972 Act. Notably, the State has admitted that the notifications were not published in the official gazette. The State’s justification is that since sufficient publicity was given through other means, no person suffered any prejudice, and therefore, the omission to publish the notifications in the official gazette should be treated merely as a technical irregularity without any legal consequence.”
Referring to state government, they court added, “We are unable to accept the contention raised by the State Government. Section 40(4) of the 1972 Act is a special provision that empowers the State Government to grant immunity to individuals who would otherwise be considered in violation of the Act and, consequently, in unlawful control, custody, or possession of an animal, animal article, or trophy.”
Concluding the order read: “We therefore conclude by holding that the Government orders dated 16.12.2015 and 17.02.2016 are void ab initio and legally unenforceable. ”
“We would only observe that the State Government is at liberty to issue a fresh notification, in terms of Section 40(4) of the 1972 Act, for conferring the immunity envisaged under the said provision, to persons or class of persons envisaged under the statutory provision.”
Forest officials responded that, the department can outline further procedures only after receiving the court order.
Since this is a high court verdict, the party still has the option to approach the Supreme Court.
If not, the forest department will have to take custody of the ivory, which the party must surrender.
They clarified that there is a misconception that all such government orders originate from forest department proposals. In reality, it can also work the other way.
For instance, in 2023, the Army had sought to keep certain ivory items in safe custody, and the order approving it came directly from the government without consulting the department. The department later contested that order legally.
Officials stressed that not every government order in such matters is issued based on a forest department proposal. In this case, they said, further action will be taken in line with the high court directions.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Sreelakshmi Soman)
