Tiger claw row: Jaggesh moves High Court questioning legality of search

Petition says search was conducted without giving him time to respond to notice, which was issued the same day

Updated - October 27, 2023 09:11 pm IST

Published - October 27, 2023 08:28 pm IST - Bengaluru

Jaggesh

Jaggesh | Photo Credit: File Photo

Actor and Rajya Sabha member Jaggesh has moved the High Court of Karnataka questioning the legality of the search conducted on his premises by the Forest Department on the issue of possessing a tiger claw without giving him any time to respond to the notice issued by the officials themselves on the same day.

What notice said

It was pointed out in the petition that the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forest Mobile Squad, issued a notice on October 25, asking Mr. Jaggesh to produce the tiger claw for inspection. And the notice stated that action under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, would be initiated if he failed to produce the said animal artefact.

However, without giving any time to the petitioner to respond to the notice, a team of 14 officials, led by a Range Forest Officer, searched his premises on October 25 based on a search warrant issued by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Mobile Squad, the petition said.

Conducting a search, ransacking articles, including the papers in his custody as an MP, amounted to “excess” of power besides being arbitrary and illegally.

Stating that the officials, who searched his premises, forced him to record his statement before leaving the premises after collecting the pendant of “animal article”, it was contended that the act of the officials in recording his statement amounted to self-incrimination, which was violative of the Article 20 of the Constitution.

Provisions of law

Pointing out that provisions of the law quoted in the notice issued to the petitioner were related to offences of hunting of wild animals, holding articles of hunted animals, trespass, dealings in trophy and animal articles without licence etc., the petition said that none of these offences applied to the petitioner.

The petition is yet come up for hearing before the court.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.