New Delhi, Sep 15 The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list for hearing a plea challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that withdrew Wildlife SOS co-founder and CEO Kartick Satyanarayan's interim protection from arrest in an alleged leopard poaching case.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Satyanarayan, urged a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana for an urgent hearing of the plea.
“It will be listed,” the CJI said. The case relates to an investigation by the Madhya Pradesh State Tiger Strike Force (STSF) into the alleged poaching of leopards, whose skins were recovered in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Gwalior Bench had recently dismissed two petitions filed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and withdrawn Satyanarayan’s interim protection from arrest. The court also directed him to appear before the STSF on September 21.
According to a news report, the high court recalled the protection after the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department alleged that Satyanarayan had suppressed a third summons and an arrest warrant issued against him.
The department had alleged that he had failed to join the investigation into the poaching of 10 leopards across Sheopur and Morena districts.
The Wildlife SOS chief has rejected the state’s description of him as “absconding”.
The organisation has maintained that its anti-poaching unit had assisted authorities in uncovering the alleged racket and that seeking legal protection did not amount to a refusal to cooperate with the investigation.
Dave, on Tuesday, told the bench that Satyanarayan’s organisation had helped authorities recover the leopard skins but was subsequently implicated in the case.
“Two petitions have been dismissed by the high court under the Wildlife Protection Act. We are from an NGO and we had led to the recovery of leopard skins. Now we ourselves have been implicated by the state,” Dave submitted.
“You were keeping leopards at home,” the bench asked.
“No. We led to the recovery of the skins in Agra. The recovery was in Uttar Pradesh, and the matter was thereafter taken up in Madhya Pradesh,” the senior lawyer responded.
Dave said Satyanarayan was willing to cooperate with the authorities and appear before the investigating agency, but required protection from arrest.
He also said that the protection should extend to related proceedings, saying, “There is no point in appearing in one matter with protection if I can be arrested in the other.”
