BALRAM KUMAWAT versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 27-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BALRAM KUMAWAT 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972/Constitution of India, Articles 14 
and 19: 
Import of Mammoth Fossil Ivory-High Court holding that it conforms 
C to description of banned ivory in India and hence banned-On appeal, 
Held: Trade in ivory is completely prohibited to restrict poaching of 
elephants-Hence such prohibition is a reasonable restriction in terms of 
Clause (6) of Article 19-Not violative of Article 14-The law should be 
interpreted having regard to the subject matter of the offence vis-a-vis 
D purpose of law it seeks to achieve-Subject matter, if comes within the 
purview of the law, the Court may not go farther to interpret the law 
differently-When plain and dictionary meaning could be given effect in 
consonance with the purpose and object of the Act, U should be given effect 
to in preference to restricted meaning-Construing so, the High Court 
E rightly invoked the provision of law banning the ivory of any description 
in India-Interpretation of Statutes. 
Words and Phrases: 
fossil ivory', 'mammoth fossil ivory '-Meaning of 
F 
Doctrines: 
Doctrines of 'proportionality'. 
Legal Maxims-Maxim 'ut res magis valeat quam pereat '-Meaning 
G of 
The question which arose in these appeals was whether 'mammoth 
ivory' imported in India conforms to the description of"lvory imported 
in India" as contained in the Wild Life (Protection) Act 
H 
It was contended for the appellant-Importer that trading of 
.. 
• 
,. 
-
~ -
BALRAMKUMAWATv. U.0.1. 
25 
mammoth fossil ivory as imported was not banned either under the Act A 
or under the International Convention on International Trade in 
'Endangered Species'; that the purport and object of the Act could not 
be sub-served by imposing ban on trade in mammoth ivory; that since 
the mammoth ivory does not answer the description of wild animal, 
the relevant provision of the Act would not be applicable; and that the B 
intention of the Legislature could not be construed to ban any article 
irrespective of the purport and object it seeks to achieve. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is a complete prohibition of trade in ivory. Such C 
a complete prohibition is a reasonable restriction within the meaning of 
Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Act 
being not unreasonable does not also attract the wrath of Article 14 of 
the Constitution of India. The object of Parliament was not only to ban 
trade in imported elephant ivory but ivory of every description so that D 
poaching of elephant can be effectively restricted. [29-H, 30-A, E) 
Indian Handicrafts Emporium & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 
[2003) 7 sec 589, relied on. 
Shorter Oxford Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary, referred E 
to. 
1.2. The law would have to be interpreted having regard to the 
subject matter of the offence and the object of the law it seeks to 
achieve. The purpose of the law is not to allow the offender to sneak F 
out of the meshes of law. Criminal Jurisprudence does not say so. A 
statute must be construed as a workable instrument. 'ut res magis valeat 
quam pereat' is a well-known principle of law. [31-H, 32-A, 34-CJ 
State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR (1963) SC 1241 and 
R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka & Anr., AIR (1992) SC 81, relied G 
on. 
LalitaJalan&Anr. v.BombayGasCo. Ltd. & Ors., (2003)4SCALE 
52 and Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AIR (1990) 
SC 123, referred to. 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
• 
A 
1.3. Potential public mischief cannot be a ground to invoke the 
court's interpretative role to make a new offence. Making of legislation 
is not the job of the judiciary. Making of a penal legislation by the 
Judiciary is strictly out of its bound. However, when the law working 
.... 
in the field is clear then what is necessary for it is to find out as to 
B whether any offence has been created or not. Once it is held that the 
subject matter comes within the purview of the law, the Court may not 
go further and say by interpretive reasoning that the same is not so 
created. [39-H, 40-A-B) 
c 
1.4. In view of the well-settled principles of law that where plain 
and dictionary meaning can be given, reference to preamble or ·a 
heading may not be of much use. A restrictive meaning cannot be 
attributed to the word 'ivory' as the dictionary meaning should be 
ad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.