Preferential treatment raises eyebrows 

The Kerala Forest Department’s recent move to approach the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for a one-time amnesty for people possessing wildlife trophy in the State has reignited a debate over the department’s alleged preferential treatment of wildlife offenders.

The department has pushed a proposal for “granting another chance to declare wild animal articles and trophies under Section 40 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972”. The justification for moving the proposal to the State Board for Wildlife was to offer an opportunity for the legal heirs of those who inherited wildlife trophy from their ancestors with valid ownership certificates. Senior officials noted that there had been several instances of the legal heirs failing to get the inherited wildlife trophy declared in their names on time for various reasons.

Section 40 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, prescribes that “every person having the control, custody or possession of any animal article, trophy or uncured trophy of captive animals specified in Schedule I shall declare to the Chief Wildlife Warden or the Authorised Officer within 30 days from the commencement of the Act.” Illegal possession of a wildlife trophy can result in imprisonment for three to seven years and a fine of not less than ₹25,000.

Although forest officials argued that the beneficiaries of the proposed scheme would be legal heirs of those with the rightful ownership certificates — and that the Union government should take a call on the request — the move brought back to discussion the conflicting stands taken by the department in the case of actor Mohanlal and popular Malayalam rapper Vedan (V. M. Hiran Das), both booked for illegal possession of wildlife trophy. Officials asserted that the proposal had nothing to do with any of the wildlife crime cases currently being pursued in courts, but this has set tongues wagging.

When the department took a benevolent approach to Mohanlal, who was reportedly found in possession of two pairs of ivory fixed on a mirror stand a few years ago, it went tough on Vedan, who was found wearing a chain with a pendant allegedly made from a leopard tooth.

While it took an Income Tax Department raid for the department to know about the actor’s alleged possession of ivory, a criminal case was booked by police for alleged possession of ganja, paving the way for the action against Vedan. The department wasted no time in arresting the rapper, whereas it reportedly handled the case of Mohanlal with kid gloves. Vedan told officials that the leopard tooth was a gift from an admirer and that he was unaware of the legal intricacies.

Incidentally, both cases were booked at the Malayattoor Forest Range office and registered at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor.

The department chose not to remove the mirror studded with two sets of fully developed ivory to its strongroom or the State Treasury, where the material objects involved in court cases are stored. Though not illegal to leave the material objects, which are difficult to transport, with the accused after completing the legal formalities, questions on possible destruction of evidence by the accused were raised in this case.

The alleged haste with which the department acted in Vedan’s case received widespread condemnation from the public and those who had earlier led the State Forest Department. There was criticism that the department chose to ignore the alleged use of similar pendants by two other Malayalam movie actors, including a Union Minister.

Urgent need

“Great injustice to Vedan. Nobody can be duped by a fake elephant tusk. But anybody can get confused with a tiger/leopard tooth with that of another similar animal. What a shame, especially considering the fact that the much-discussed elephant tusk case was also dealt with in the same Forest Range Office,” noted Gopinath Vallilil, a former Head of Forest Force, Kerala, in his social media account.

Preferential treatment for the mighty would undermine the foundation of the rule of law and public trust in the system. The discriminatory treatment meted out to the two accused in the wildlife crime cases calls for balanced handling of the cases to earn and consolidate public trust and fair dispensation of justice.

Published - June 19, 2025 12:57 am IST