Freedom or cage? Gujarat high court to decide birds’ fate

What should happen to birds and animals seized from the possession of a person? They should be released to their natural habitats or handed over to the man who possessed them, while the case is in progress? Gujarat high court is hearing a petition to decide on the sensitive issue.

The petition has been filed by one Jalal Sheikh of Surat who wants to take back the 155 birds and 20 rabbits seized by the Surat police. He moved the Gujarat high court after two lower courts passed two different orders which were not agreeable to Sheikh.

On May 30 this year, the Amrolli police in Surat raided the premises of Sheikh and seized 60 pigeons, 34 parrots, 37 love birds, 24 sparrows and 20 rabbits kept in cages and lodged a criminal case against him. The police raided the place on a tip-off from Omkar Youth Mandal, an animal welfare group.

Sheikh then filed an application before the magistrate court, seeking to take into his possession the birds and animals. During the hearing of the plea, the police argued that Sheikh had kept the birds in a vulnerable condition — the wings of the birds were slit and their legs were tied with rings so that they could not fly away.

The police also contested that Sheikh had not clarified from where he brought the endangered species. They said that some of the birds captured were protected species. The police also apprehended that the species could be sold by Sheikh in the market if they were returned to him.

After hearing the plea, the magistrate ordered to release the birds to their natural habitats as Sheikh failed to furnish any licence entitling him to keep and sell birds and animals. He also could not furnish any receipt of purchase.

Sheikh then approached the court of additional sessions judge against the magistrate’s order.  The judge modified the magistrate’s order but said that the police would have to keep the birds and animals in the veterinary hospital and Sheikh would have to pay for the maintenance till the final outcome of the criminal case.

This made Sheikh move the high court. During the hearing, Omkar Youth Mandal counsel Nimish Kapadia submitted that all birds, whether scheduled or not, “are wild animals and they are properties of the government.   

Uder section 48 of the Wildlife Protection Act, no wildlife animal can be kept in the possession of any person in the absence of licence and even if there is a licence, it shall be cancelled looking at the cruelty done to the species".

Kapadia further stated that, under section 12 of the Act, the chief wildlife warden can grant special permit to any person to catch species for the purpose of educational, scientific and research needs and for preparing life-saving drugs. "But this is not the case here. Sheikh has failed to furnish the details to show from where he procured the species. Therefore, they should be released to their natural habitats as they are government property."