Setback for Dadasaheb Phalke winner Mohanlal as Kerala HC quashes govt order on his ivory collection

Kochi, Oct 24
In a major setback to actor Mohanlal and the Kerala government, the High Court on Friday quashed the state’s order that had legalised the actor’s collection of some ivory tusks.

However, reacting to the order, the actor’s counsel said this was "nothing but only a technical issue."

The court also cancelled the licence issued to him and directed the Kerala government to issue a fresh notification in compliance with legal procedures of the land.

The court observed that the 2015 Kerala government order regularising Mohanlal’s ivory collection suffered from procedural lapses and was never published in the official gazette, rendering it invalid.

It further noted that the Kerala government’s action to legitimise the possession of ivory was not in accordance with statutory norms.

The case traces back to December 21, 2011, when the Income Tax Department conducted a raid at Mohanlal’s residence in Thevara, Kochi, and reportedly discovered two pairs of ivory tusks.

Following the raid, the Forest Department registered a case against the actor for alleged illegal possession of ivory.

The issue resurfaced after the government moved to withdraw the case, a decision later struck down by the Perumbavoor Judicial First Class Magistrate Court.

Mohanlal subsequently approached the Kerala High Court challenging the lower court’s order, while another petitioner, James Mathew, sought legal action against the actor for possession of the elephant tusks.

Earlier, the trial court had directed Mohanlal to personally appear in connection with the case, observing that the state’s withdrawal decision lacked merit.

The actor later secured a stay from the Kerala High Court. With Friday's judgment, the High Court has reaffirmed the need for due process in matters involving wildlife protection and government intervention.

The ruling not only reopens the legal scrutiny surrounding actor Mohanlal’s possession of ivory tusks but also places the state government under pressure to rectify procedural irregularities in its earlier decisions