As he sported a tiger claw pendant during the Big Boss Kannada reality show, little would Varthur Santhosh have thought he was catching a tiger by the tail.
Following his arrest on October 22 for the possession of the pendant, Karnataka Forest Department officials also conducted raids at the residences of film actor Darshan Thoogudeepa, actor and Rajyasabha MP Jaggesh, actor-politician Nikhil Kumaraswamy, film producer Rockline Venkatesh and astrologer Vinay Guruji.
The articles in the possession of Darshan and Kumaraswamy were confirmed as fake by the officials, while that of Jaggesh has been sent for forensic analysis.
As per reports, Santhosh, a farmer, cattle breeder and bull race organiser, had purchased the claws about three years ago which were later fashioned into a pendant by a jewellery shop. He was granted bail on October 27 by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and has claimed that it was inherited from his ancestors.
Meanwhile, Jaggesh claimed that his tiger claw pendant was a gift from his mother, and has now approached the High Court of Karnataka questioning the search in his house without giving him time to answer the notice served. Vinay Guruji insisted to the officials who raided his ashram near Koppe that the tiger skin rug he was clicked sitting on was an offering from a devotee to whom it was returned.
The arrest and the raids have stirred a hornet’s nest, and several questions seem to be emerging from the din.
Under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, killing wild animals and selling or possessing animal articles such as their claws, skin or horns is a criminal offence. But what if it was inherited before the law came into effect? Can a wildlife artefact be gifted? What do you do if you come in possession of an artefact unintentionally?
What is the importance of ownership certificate under the law?
As per the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, wild animals are protected under various Schedules.
“Any artefact which is made with a part or a whole of a wild animal listed under the Wildlife Protection Act is an animal article or a trophy. The possession of any such thing needs an ownership certificate,” explains Jose Louies, director & chief (wildlife crime control) at Wildlife Trust of India.
“Anybody who is in possession of these materials without an ownership certificate is violating the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act.”
The ownership certificate, however, does not grant one absolute ownership of the artefact but only provides custodianship of the same.
Fake Tiger nail. | Photo Credit: WTI
What constitutes legal possession of a wildlife article?
As per the law, one can be in legal possession of a wildlife article-
- If the person had custody of the article before the enactment of the law in 1972
- If the person declared the article during the moratorium given by various State Governments after the enactment of the law.
- If a person inherited the article from a blood relative or spouse.
In all three situations, ownership certificate is mandatory.
“These are the only three ways you can inherit or own a wildlife article in your possession. Anything other than these - even if somebody gifted it to you – is considered a violation,” Mr. Louies says.
Is gifting wildlife articles with ownership certificates legal?
An ownership certificate doesn’t give one the right to gift, buy or sell a wildlife article. Nor should a wildlife article be accepted as a gift or else the receiver would be in illegal possession of the same.
The term ‘inheritance’ also carries significance. “For example, a husband who has an article and an ownership certificate cannot gift it to his wife while he is alive, but she can inherit it after his death,” explains Mr. Louies.
The ownership certificates are issued by the chief wildlife wardens of each state. Each article with a certificate is marked and has a serial number. The address of the location of the material is also recorded. The transportation of the same from one location to another also requires permission from the chief wildlife warden.
How serious a crime is illegal possession of wildlife article?
Possession of Schedule-1 animal articles is a non-bailable cognisable offence which means the violator can be arrested and bail can be given only by a magistrate. Animals such as tiger, blackbuck, brow-antlered deer, cheetah, golden langur, lion, lion-tailed macaque, Malabar civet, loris, and rhinoceros are among the 40+ mammals protected under Schedule 1.
If one comes in possession of an artefact made of body parts of any such animal and does not have an ownership certificate, the law requires them to inform an authorised officer within 48 hours of possession.
If the illegal possession of a wildlife article is reported or noticed, an officer would examine the material. If the official is prima facie convinced that it is a wildlife article and not a fake, the violator would be arrested, and the material would be sent for forensic examination.
The Mysuru connection
Original Tiger claw. | Photo Credit: WTI
Is there a lack of awareness on the law?
On Thursday Forest, Ecology and Environment Minister Eshwar Khandre announced the government’s plan to provide a window for the public to return wildlife artefacts in their possession as a one-time measure. Mixed opinions seem to be emerging from wildlife experts regarding this.
An ecologist who didn’t want to be named noted that there is a lack of awareness among people, and, therefore, governments regularly bring out such schemes by which people can surrender items.
“Many a time people inherit such articles from their ancestors; There are even instances of people simply finding it in their attic or an old trunk and then don’t know what to do with it. To address such situations this amnesty seems fair. But fresh pieces should not be palmed off as inherited heirlooms,” they said.
Mr. Louies of WTI, however, noted that there are also several instances of artefacts being procured by the influential who are well aware of the law but disregard it to flaunt their clout and wealth. The demand is also driven by superstitions more than often.
“Most of the educated people in this country are aware that tiger is a protected animal, and the claw is not something you can keep,” he says, adding that there is a huge demand for articles like tiger claw pendants in the jewellery circle.
“Ninety per cent of the artefacts would be fake. They fashion it out of a cow or buffalo horn or camel teeth or bone and carve it to resemble an animal claw or teeth. The Hakki Pikkis are experts in this. But there is always a demand and a 10 per cent probability that one may get an original,” Mr. Louies notes.
Lack of awareness among large section of people, mulling two months moratorium: Forest Minister
Is there a demand for jewellery made out of body parts of animals?
Although a large majority of the available jewellery could be fake, it helps to keep the demand for wildlife artefacts high. Minister Khandre, while announcing the plans to provide a window to declare and return illegal possession of wildlife articles, appealed to the jewellers to refrain from entertaining requests to make jewellery out of wildlife articles and display a sign outside their shops that it was a “punishable offence.”
This is not the first time senior officials have been making requests to the jewellers. In 2012 former principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), wildlife B.K. Singh, in a letter to jewellers association, mentioned the involvement of goldsmiths and jewellers in wildlife crimes and warned them to not get involved in the same.
In 2022, Vijay Kumar Gogi, former PCCF, wrote another similar letter to the association. Investigations are still on for the jewellers who made the pendant for Santhosh.
