Legal experts suggest that actor Mohanlal could face new wildlife crime charges, or see existing ones expanded, following the Kerala High Court’s recent decision to invalidate his ownership certificates for both ivory artefacts and elephant tusks.
The issue of Mohanlal’s illegal ivory possession first came to light after an Income Tax raid on his Kochi home on July 22, 2011. During the raid, authorities discovered 13 ivory artefacts, including detailed carvings up to 60 cm depicting deities like Gaja Lakshmi, Geethopadesham, Krishnaleela, Tirupati Balaji, Dhanalakshmi, Devi, Dashavatharam, and Ganapathy, alongside elephant tusks.
Interestingly, while these artefacts were listed in inventories compiled by both the IT department and the Assistant Conservator of Forest in Ernakulam after the raid, no separate case was ever filed against Mohanlal specifically for their possession. The only case previously registered at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 3, Perumbavoor, pertained solely to his possession of four elephant tusks. Forest officials have now clarified that the illegal possession of these ivory artefacts also constitutes a serious offense under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Serious Violations Under the Wildlife Act
The chargesheet against the actor explicitly stated that he “committed the crime of illegal transfer and possession of the tusks of the Schedule 1 (12 B) wild animal, Elephant (elephant maximus), in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act.”
Furthermore, the chargesheet accused him of “possessing, transferring, buying, and keeping elephant tusks in custody without informing the government or obtaining permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden, thereby violating the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.”
Judicial sources explain that if Mohanlal acquired the ivory and artefacts at different times, two distinct cases might be necessary. However, if they were obtained in a single transaction, the department could simply add the artefact charges to the existing ivory case. If the exact acquisition details for both the artefacts and tusks are unclear, a single, comprehensive case would suffice.
Interestingly, the Forest Department initially left both the elephant tusks, mounted on mirror tables, and the various ivory artefacts in Mohanlal’s custody.
Last month, a Division Bench of the court, comprising Justices A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, declared the ownership certificates for both the ivory and the artefacts “void ab initio and legally unenforceable,” effectively striking them down.
A top functionary from the department stated that the State government is expected to soon decide on the court order that invalidated the ownership certificates. The Forest Department will then determine its next steps regarding the case after the government finalizes its stance on the verdict.