The Supreme Court of India has agreed to expedite the hearing of a petition filed by Kartick Satyanarayan, co-founder and CEO of Wildlife SOS. Satyanarayan is challenging a decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that revoked his interim protection from arrest in a case involving alleged leopard poaching. The case is set to be heard this week by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, following an urgent request by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave.
Background of the Case
The controversy originates from an investigation led by the Madhya Pradesh State Tiger Strike Force (STSF) into allegations of leopard poaching. Leopard skins were reportedly discovered in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had previously dismissed two petitions under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, revoking Satyanarayan’s interim protection due to alleged non-cooperation. The court instructed him to appear before the STSF on September 21.
The High Court’s Gwalior Bench rescinded the interim relief after accusations from the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department that Satyanarayan suppressed information related to a third summons and an arrest warrant, failing to participate in the investigation concerning the poaching of 10 leopards in Sheopur and Morena districts.
Wildlife SOS’s Position
Wildlife SOS, for its part, disputes the State’s classification of Satyanarayan as “absconding.” The organization insists that their anti-poaching unit played a pivotal role in dismantling the poaching network, arguing that seeking legal protection does not equate to a lack of cooperation.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Dave argued, “Two petitions have been dismissed by the High Court under the Wildlife Protection Act. We are from an NGO and we had facilitated the recovery of leopard skins. Now we ourselves have been implicated by the State.”
More Read
Legal Proceedings
CJI Surya Kant questioned, “You were keeping leopards at home?” To which Dave responded, “No. We led to the recovery of the skins in Agra. The recovery took place in Uttar Pradesh, and the matter subsequently moved to Madhya Pradesh. We are willing to cooperate and appear before the authorities, but we require protection.”
Dave further emphasized the need for protection across all related legal proceedings, stating, “There is no point in appearing in one matter with protection if I can be arrested in another.”
Conceding to this request, CJI Kant confirmed, “It will be listed.” Thus, the Supreme Court is set to hear this critical plea soon, potentially setting a precedent in wildlife protection litigation.
