Fri Oct 24 08:50:26 UTC 2025: Summary:
The Kerala High Court has declared the ownership certificates granted to actor Mohanlal for ivory items found at his residence in 2011 as “illegal and unenforceable.” The ruling came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of these certificates, which were issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Wildlife. The PIL argued that the actor lacked the necessary possession certificate at the time the ivory was seized and that the subsequent certificate was granted illegally. While the court struck down the certificates, it refrained from commenting on the alleged collusion and manner of issuance, citing potential prejudice to pending criminal proceedings against the actor. The court noted that the State government could issue a fresh notification according to the Wildlife Protection Act to confer immunity to individuals or groups as stipulated by the law.
News Article:
Kerala High Court Declares Mohanlal’s Ivory Ownership Certificates “Illegal”
KOCHI, October 24, 2025 – The Kerala High Court has ruled that ownership certificates issued to actor Mohanlal for ivory items seized from his Kochi residence in 2011 are “illegal and unenforceable.” The decision, delivered on Friday, comes after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a former Forest officer and another petitioner challenged the validity of the certificates granted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Wildlife.
The PIL argued that Mohanlal did not possess the required ownership certificate under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, when Income Tax officials initially discovered the ivory items, including two pairs of elephant tusks and 13 ivory artefacts. The petitioners alleged that the subsequent issuance of the certificate was a result of collusion and a violation of the Wildlife Protection Act.
A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian upheld the petitioners’ claim, striking down the Kerala government’s orders granting the ownership certificates. However, the court refrained from commenting on the specifics of the alleged collusion surrounding the issuance of the certificates, citing concerns that it could prejudice pending criminal proceedings against the actor.
“We feel that any finding on the issue might prejudice the actor and the criminal proceedings that are pending against him,” the court stated in its order.
Despite striking down the certificates, the court clarified that the State government retains the authority to issue a new notification under Section 44 of the Wildlife Protection Act, potentially granting immunity to individuals or classes of individuals as permitted under the law. The case has reignited debate surrounding the illegal possession and trade of ivory in India.
First Piper 