LexINDIAN HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
> INDIAN HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM AND ORS. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AUGUST 27, 2003 (V.N. KHARE, CJ., Y.K. SABHARWAL AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19(1)(g) and 14-Wi1d Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended)-Section 49C-Prohibition in trade of imported ivory-- C Constitutional validity of-Held· Protection and preservation of wild life was in public interest and amendment was made for saving endangered species from extinction and to arrest further depletion-Hence restriction imposed in public interest-Thus Amending Act 44 of 1991 not ultra vires Articles 19(J)(g) and 14. Article 300A-Right to property-Held: Is a human right and a constitutional right but not a fundamental right-Every claim to property would not be a property right-Control of property by State short of deprivation would not entail payment of compensation. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended): D E Sections 49-C, 40A-Trader and non-trader-Classification a/- Held: Trader and non~trader constitute different classes-Classification found on intelligible differentia clearly distinguishing one from another- F Trader cannot be discriminated with vis-a-vis the non-trader. Seizure of ivory from trader-Prohibition in carrying on trade- Held: Restriction in matter of possession of ivory is implicit-Vesting of possession by State inferred by necessary implication-Animal article to G be handed over to the competent authority-No compensation payable. Sections 39 and 49-C (7)-Prohibition of trade in imported ivory- Seizure of ivory from trader-When property vests in the Government- Held: Properties vest in the Government when criminal trial establishing commission of an offence-On facts, there is absence of criminal trial and H 43 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A offence having been committed, Section 39 has no application, thus ivory does not vest in the Government. Trade in ivory permissible originally-Subsequently restriction imposed by Act No. 28 of 1986-Thereafter, total prohibition imposed by B Act No. 44 of 1991-Amendment Act No. 16 of 2003 imposing further restrictions-Trader challenging constitutional validity of 1991 Act-Res extra commercium-Applicability of-High Court applying principle of res extra commercium-On appeal, held: In such a case doctrine of res extra commercium cannot be invoked-Doctrines. C Sections 63 and 49-C-Seizure of ivory from trader-Guidelines by Government with regard to disposal of stocks-Constitutionality of-Held: In view of clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 49-C (1), (3), (5) and (6) Government could not have given effect to the direction that trader entitled to only one piece of article and rest to be destroyed-Applications D to be disposed of in terms of Section 49-C-Government entitled to physical possession of ivory in seizure-Articles in possession depicting cultural and religious heritage to be displayed in museum and not to be destroyed- Constitution of India, Article 300A. E Interpretation of Statutes: Interpretation-Rule of-Purposive construction-8tatute is to be read in entirety-Full effect to be given to purport and object of the Act. Internal Aids-Words used/or declaring meaning of several words- F Held: Words need interpretation-Same words used in the statute not carry same meaning throughout-Doctrine of purposive construction to be applied Appellants are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of articles relating to art and craft manufactured from ivory. They G legally imported ivory from African countries and manufactured certain articles out of ivory. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and other matters connected therewith. Indian elephant was brought within the purview of Schedule 'A'. Thereafter, restrictions were H imposed by Act No. 28of1986 on trade and commerce of wild animals. • ... INDIAN HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM v. U.O.I. 45 By amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 Section 49-C was inserted which A totally prohibited trade in imported ivory. The Act was to be made operational within six months within which the trader could dispose of his stock. Appellants did not take any step to dispose of the imported ivory held in stock by them. However, they filed writ petitions challenging the constitutionality and validity of the 1991 Amendment B Act. High Court upheld the vires of the said Act. Hence the p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.