Kerala HC strikes down certificates granted to Mohanlal for ivory possession

The Kerala High Court on Friday, October 24, 2025, declared as “illegal and unenforceable” the ownership certificates issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Wildlife for the ivory items found in actor Mohanlal’s residence at Thevara, Kochi, in 2011.

The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian in response to public interest litigations filed by James Mathew, a former forest officer, and Paulose A. A. of Ernakulam, who had contested the legality of granting ownership of the ivory items to the actor.

The court found that the state had not complied with mandatory procedures under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

The bench rejected Mohanlal’s argument that publication of the government notifications in electronic media was sufficient, emphasising that the law explicitly requires such notifications to be published in the state’s official gazette — either in print or electronic form, the Indian Express reported.

In his petition, James Mathew stated that officials from the Income Tax Department had seized two pairs of elephant tusks and 13 ivory artefacts from actor Mohanlal’s residence. Following the seizure, the Forest Department registered a case against the actor and three others in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, The Hindu reported.

Mathew contended that at the time of the seizure, Mohanlal did not possess a valid ownership certificate as required under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. He alleged that the certificate was later issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in collusion with the actor, calling it illegal and a clear violation of the Act. The petitioner also pointed out that no case had been filed concerning the illegal possession of the 13 ivory artefacts found at the actor’s home.

The Kerala High Court ruled that the ownership certificates issued to Mohanlal by the state government in 2016 and 2017 were legally unenforceable.

While nullifying the government orders and the certificates, the court chose not to comment on the petitioners’ arguments regarding how the authority to issue such certificates was exercised. The bench observed that making findings on that issue could potentially affect the actor and the pending criminal proceedings against him.

Nonetheless, the court noted that the state government retained the authority to issue a new notification under Section 44 of the Wildlife Protection Act, if it wished to extend the statutory immunity provided under that provision to specific individuals or groups.