Wildlife conservationist files PIL in HC for violation of multiple rules at Pilikula Biological Park
Mangaluru: A wildlife conservationist has filed public interest litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court alleging serious violation of several rules at the Pilikula Biological Park and asking for immediate probe and action by the authorities concerned.
The petitioner Bhuvan M, who is also a member of the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), among other wildlife organizations, and High Court advocate Ashwin Joyston Kutinha, conducted an independent survey of the park at Pilikula on Oct 31, 2024. The findings of the survey are learned to have brought to light multiple breaches of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009 at the park, reports Times of India.
The conservationist, speaking on the issue, has alleged that the enclosures for the animals were unsafe and deteriorating in condition, with the barriers being rusted and damaged. He pointed out that the condition of the enclosures posed serious risks to the animals inside. The survey further found that fishing nets were being used as barriers, which was a hazardous and also unauthorized arrangement. The Central Zoo Authority has mandated minimum size requirements to be used for enclosures but the management at Pilikula has failed to follow the rule, Bhuvan said.
Speaking about care of the animals at the biological park, the conservationist has said that the survey found veterinary care to be substandard as the administration failed to follow the government rules. The animals lived in highly unhygienic conditions with the water used being contaminated.
Bhuvan has further alleged that the unauthorized acquisition and release of animals was a violation of Central Zoo Authority guidelines.
Stating that multiple RTI applications were filed by him on the above issues, the conservationist accused the concerned authorities of attempting to suppress the truth regarding the condition at the biological park through delays in response to the applications. He also said that the matter would be escalated by submitting a detailed representation to the Central Zoo Authority, the chief wildlife warden, the principal chief conservator of forests and the commissioner, Pilikula Development Authority on February 24.
He has demanded action against the concerned government officials and transfer of the management of the Pilikula Biological Park to ensure the wellbeing of animals.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on ED’s power to seize property without judicial oversight
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on December 12 sought the Union government’s response to a petition filed by K. C. Veerendra Puppy, a sitting Karnataka MLA, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to seize and retain property for up to 180 days without judicial oversight.
Veerendra Puppy is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Chitradurga Assembly constituency in Chitradurga district and was elected in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections on an Indian National Congress ticket.
A Bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar issued notice on the plea and tagged it with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the PMLA’s adjudication framework.
The petitioner has specifically challenged Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA, which empower the ED to seize, freeze, and retain property for up to 180 days without furnishing reasons or granting the affected person an opportunity to contest the action during that period. She has also questioned the composition of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, contending that it lacks members with judicial training.
ALSO READ: 9 die in Sydney shooting; police killed 1 gunman, another arrested
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha flagged a possible infirmity in the law, observing that complex issues relating to property rights and constitutional safeguards are being decided by authorities without a judicial background.
Appearing for the MLA, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar argued that the current statutory framework allows the ED to operate without effective accountability, leading to arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner claimed that all her assets, including bank accounts, fixed deposits, jewellery, and vehicles, were seized or frozen without justification and without an opportunity to be heard.
Rohatgi submitted that the challenge rests on two principal grounds: first, the ED’s power to retain property and documents for 180 days without disclosing “reasons to believe”; and second, the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority, which currently comprises a single member who is not legally trained.
He further pointed out that, as per data available on the ED’s official website, nearly 99 percent of attachment and retention orders are upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that it functions as a mere approving body rather than an independent adjudicatory forum.
The petition argues that these provisions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, depriving individuals of equality before law and personal liberty. It contends that adjudication occurs only after the expiry of the 180-day period, when the ED seeks confirmation of retention, leaving affected persons without any remedy in the interim.
Describing the situation as a legal “vacuum” that enables arbitrary and excessive seizures, the plea urges the Court to mandate disclosure of reasons and provide for early judicial review. It also seeks directions requiring that every bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority include at least one judicial member.
ALSO READ: Fight for Indian democracy: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tells gathering at mega rally against ‘vote theft’
The MLA has relied on a 2023 Sikkim High Court judgment in Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, which directed that PMLA benches must include judicial members. That ruling is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and has been linked with the present case.
The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that when executive action affects personal liberty, the “reasons to believe” must be recorded and communicated to the affected person. The petitioner argues that this safeguard should extend to property seizures, which can severely impact livelihood and reputation.
The matter will now be heard along with other pending challenges to the PMLA, including those questioning the validity of Section 6 of the Act.
