Srinagar: The High Court has likened trading in endangered animals or articles from their organs with dealing in noxious intoxicating drugs.
“It is a foregone conclusion that trading in animals close to being wiped out of existence and articles made from their bones, skins or other parts of their bodies is a situation akin to dealing in any other noxious or pernicious trade like intoxicating drugs,” a bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar said.
The court said that what was destructive of the environment, forests and wildlife was contrary to the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The court made these observations while dismissing two petitions filed separately by 19 fur traders and the ‘All Kashmir Fur Traders and Manufacturers Association’.
The petitioners were seeking their rehabilitation in the wake of the complete ban imposed on the fur trade in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir due to the enactment of the J&K Wildlife Protection Act, 1978.
Underscoring that no right inheres in the petitioners to claim rehabilitation as a matter of right, the court said: “There is no question of the petitioners having been deprived of their means of livelihood as earning of livelihood by indulging in a dangerous and pernicious trade is not countenanced by any civil society anywhere in the world.”
The court said that the petitioners knew well that sooner than later they had to stop this trade.
“That apart, this court is of the firm opinion that it cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the committee of officers headed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, The reasons given by the committee to provide rehabilitation only to the artisans and not to the fur traders are fair, just and proper and, therefore, do not fall foul of Article 14 of the constitution,” the court said.
It said that nobody had a right to trade in fur or other wildlife derivatives.
“Like dealing in intoxicating drugs and liquor the trade in wild animals and their derivatives like fur is dangerous, subversive, and pernicious as it has the potential to deplete the species of wild animals and to ultimately extinguish them,” the court said.
It observed that it was a foregone conclusion that trading in endangered animals or articles from their organs was a situation akin to dealing in any other noxious or pernicious trade like intoxicating drugs.
The court said that the parliament was therefore well within its powers to impose a ban by way of appropriate legislation on trading in wildlife and their derivatives in furtherance of Article 48-A like it could prohibit trade in intoxicating drugs and liquors in compliance with the mandate of Article 47.
“It is well settled that the trade which is pernicious can be banned without attracting Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India,” the court said.
It said there were other trades like gambling, prostitution, and dealing in counterfeit coins and currency notes which were equally pernicious and so no citizen could claim fundamental rights in such trades by invoking Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution.
The court said that Article 48 A inserted in the constitution of India by the 42nd amendment enjoins upon the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and the wildlife of the country.
“Therefore, what is destructive of the environment, forests and wildlife is contrary to the Directive Principles of State Policy,” the court said.
It said that in keeping with Article 51 A every citizen of India was required to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
The court said that the principle based on which restriction could be imposed on the trade of intoxicating drugs or intoxicating liquors would also apply with equal force to trade in other pernicious and dangerous businesses like the business of trading in fur or wildlife derivatives.