Mohanlal ivory case: Setback to actor, Kerala govt as HC strikes down possession certificates

The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24, 2025) held as “unlawful and unenforceable” the possession certificates given by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Wildlife for the ivory objects within the possession of actor Mohanlal at his residence at Thevara, Kochi, in 2011.

A Division Bench of Justice A.Ok. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian issued the order on a public curiosity litigations (PIL) filed by James Mathew, a former Forest officer, and Paulose A.A. of Ernakulam who challenged the grant of possession of these things to the actor.

In his petition, Mr. Mathew stated Income Tax division personnel had seized two pairs of elephant tusks and 13 ivory artefacts from the actor’s residence. Subsequently, the Forest division registered a case in opposition to the actor and three others earlier than the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor.

The actor didn’t have a certificates of possession as mandated beneath the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 on the time of the seizure of the ivory objects. A certificates was granted later by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in collusion with the actor. This is illegitimate and in violation of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the petitioner stated, including that no case was registered for the alleged unlawful possession of 13 ivory artefacts on the actor’s residence.

The courtroom held that the possession certificates issued by the Kerala authorities to the actor in 2016 and in 2017 had been legally unenforceable.

While placing down the federal government orders and the possession certificates, the courtroom stated that it refrains from coping with the arguments superior on behalf of the petitioners concerning the method during which the facility to problem possession certificates was exercised. “We really feel that any discovering on the difficulty may prejudice the actor and the felony proceedings which are pending in opposition to him,” it stated.

However, it went on to look at that the State authorities is at liberty to problem a recent notification as per Section 44 of the Wildlife Protection Act, to confer the immunity envisaged beneath the supply to individuals or class of individuals envisaged beneath the statute.