HC upholds ban on trade in ivory, fur

The court Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 and 1991 Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Acts banning trade and manufacture of goods made of animal skins and fur and imported ivory.

"A society which does not have ethical and moral values and fails to live in harmony with nature withers and perishes. The sooner this truth is realised the better it would be for the welfare of the people," the bench consisting of Chief Justice M J Rao, Justice Anil Dev Singh and Justice Manmohan Sarin said.

Observing that it was scientifically established that all flora and fauna depend on all others, the bench said each species is indispensable for the preservation of ecology.

Holding that primacy is to be given to the common good, not to the interests of a few, the bench held in its 83-page-judgement that no citizen can claim a fundamental right under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution to trade in ivory or ivory articles, indigenous or imported.

The 1986 Amendment Act had banned trade in indigenous ivory but illegal trade in it had flourished as traders passed off ivory from local tuskers as imported ivory. In 1991, the government had banned trade in imported ivory as well. This was challenged in a bunch of writ petitions filed before the high court.

Ruling against the petitioners, the bench said that Parliament could not be faulted for introducing this amendment as traders were using this loophole to encourage poaching of elephants, which had been reduced to an endangered species. In fact, the number of tuskers had dwindled to just 1500 now from about 5000 a decade ago, the bench said, reflecting on the large-scale poaching and the failure of the wildlife department to check it. court-lead ban two new delhi

The ban was in public interest and in consonance with the moral claims embodied in Article 48A of the Constitution, which enjoins upon the state and the citizens to protect and safeguard the environment, the bench said, adding that the ecological balance cannot be disrupted to satisfy the fancies of a few.

Terming the trade in animal goods as ''obnoxious, pernicious and dangerous'', the bench held that no person can claim a fundamental right to carry out a trade in crime.

The court also rejected the petitioners plea that the government buy or recompense them for imported ivory stocks bought before the ban.

It also rejected the plea of another petitioner that the 1991 Act banned elephant ivory and not ivory of mammoth tusks. The bench said a layman cannot distinguish between the two ivories and Parliament had rightly banned trade of ivory imported into India, regardless of its source.

In a separate judgment, the same bench also upheld the constitutional validity of the 1986 Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, which apart from banning trade in Indian ivory also transferred a large number of animal articles made of fur and skin to Schedule one and two of the Act, thus banning the trade in these goods.

Such a ban had become necessary to save endangered species and check the depletion of several others, it said. The bench rejected claims for compensation in this case too, stating the Act had provided enough time for the traders to dispose of their stocks. The bench noted that the number of animal skins in the traders' stocks had risen to over 400,000, which was more than the stocks earlier shown to be with them.

Holding that the state had no obligation to buy these stocks, the bench observed that these would be dealt in accordance with law.