Balram Kumawat Vs.Union of India & Ors. Country/Territory India Type of court National - higher court Date Aug 27, 2003 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Supreme Court of India Seat of court New Delhi Judge Khare, V.Sinha, S.B.Arun Kumar Reference number AIR 2003 SC 3268, 106 (2003) DLT 392 SC Language English Subject Wild species & ecosystems Keyword Offences/penalties Wildlife products Protected plant species Protected animal species Protected fish species Enforcement/compliance Protection of species Abstract These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20.3.1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which considered mammoth ivory' imported in India as falling under the description of the words 'ivory imported in India' contained in Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972) as amended by Act No. 44 of 1991. The petioner contends that trade in mammoth fossil ivory is not banned either under the said Act or under the CITES and, thus, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. It was contended that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that mammoth ivory being deceptively similar to elephant ivory to the naked eye, the impugned Act would be applicable in relation thereto also. The Court considered that there is complete prohibition of trade in ivory. Such a complete prohibition is a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The law in no uncertain terms says that no person shall trade in ivory. It does not say that what is prohibited is trade in elephant ivory or other types of ivory. If the intention of the Parliament was to confine the subject matter of ban under Act 44 of 1991 to elephant ivory, it would have said so explicitly. The Wild Life (Protection) Act has been enacted in larger public interest and in consonance with Articles 48A and 51A (g) of the Constitution of India as also International Treaties and Conventions. The Parliament has enacted the Amending Acts of 1986, 1991 and 2003 not only for the purpose of banning a trade in elephant ivory but with a view to create a blockade of the activities of poachers and others so that a complete prohibition in trade in ivory is achieved. For these reasons the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Full text COU-156247.pdf Website www.indiankanoon.org