Kerala High Court Declares Ivory Ownership Certificates Issued to Actor Mohanlal Illegal and Void; Says Government Orders Were Issued Without Legal Authority
Pranav B Prem
The Kerala High Court has struck down the State Government’s orders and ownership certificates that regularized Malayalam actor Mohanlal’s possession of ivory tusks and artifacts, terming them “illegal and unenforceable in law.” A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian ruled that the government failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, while granting immunity and ownership rights over the ivory items.
The Court was hearing public interest litigations (PILs) filed by James Mathew and Paulose A.A., who challenged the legality of the government orders dated December 16, 2015 and February 17, 2016, and the subsequent ownership certificates issued to Mohanlal on January 16, 2016 and April 6, 2016. The petitions contended that the ivory items were seized from the actor’s residence in 2012 and that the certificates were later issued to retrospectively legalize his possession. The Court found merit in the petitioners’ contention that the State Government’s notifications under Section 40(4) of the Wildlife Protection Act were not published in the official gazette, as statutorily required. Rejecting the State’s argument that adequate publicity through other means was sufficient, the Bench held that “failure to publish the notification in the official gazette is not a mere technical irregularity but renders the exercise of power itself void.”
Citing precedents such as Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253) and I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer (1996) 6 SCC 634, the Court observed that when a statute prescribes a specific mode for exercising power, any deviation from that procedure invalidates the act. The Court emphasized that Section 40(4) of the Act allows the State to grant immunity only through a duly published notification, and such procedural compliance is mandatory. The Bench clarified that the wildlife protection regime is designed to strictly prevent illegal trade and possession of wildlife articles, with ivory being the property of the State under Section 39. Hence, the issuance of ownership certificates without a valid statutory foundation amounted to a “stillborn exercise of power.”
On the issue of locus standi, the Court upheld the maintainability of the PILs, noting that they were filed to correct a genuine legal wrong and not out of personal vendetta. Referring to Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Noida Residents Welfare Association (2025) 6 SCC 717, the Bench remarked that public interest litigation must aim to address bona fide public grievances, as in the present case.
While declaring the government orders and ownership certificates “void ab initio,” the Court refrained from making findings on the merits of the ongoing criminal case against Mohanlal, observing that such remarks might prejudice him in the pending proceedings. However, it granted liberty to the State Government to issue a fresh notification under Section 40(4) of the Act, following due procedure if it wished to regularize ownership in compliance with the law. In conclusion, the Court held: “The Government Orders dated 16.12.2015 and 17.02.2016 are void ab initio and legally unenforceable. The ownership certificates dated 16.01.2016 and 06.04.2016 issued to the respondent actor are declared illegal and unenforceable.”
Cause Title: James Mathew v State of Kerala, Paulose v. Mohanlal
Case No: WP(C) 27187/ 2019, WP(C) 11074/ 2019
Coram: Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Jobin Sebastian
