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

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.

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.

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.

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.