Wildlife CEO Arrest Protection
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wildlife SOS CEO Arrest Protection Plea
Anonymous
India’s Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wildlife SOS co-founder and CEO Kartick Satyanarayan’s challenge to a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision revoking his interim protection from arrest in an alleged leopard-poaching investigation. The case concerns the recovery of 10 leopard skins in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, and an investigation by the Madhya Pradesh State Tiger Strike Force into alleged poaching in the Sheopur and Morena districts. The High Court withdrew protection and directed Satyanarayan to appear before investigators after the state Forest Department alleged that he concealed a summons and arrest warrant and failed to cooperate with the probe. Satyanarayan and Wildlife SOS deny that he was absconding, saying their anti-poaching unit helped authorities uncover the alleged racket and recover the skins, while asserting that seeking legal protection did not constitute noncooperation.
Key Points
1
The Supreme Court bench hearing the matter comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana; the CJI agreed to list the plea after Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave sought urgent consideration.
2
The Gwalior High Court’s September 7 order said the interim protection granted on September 2 had been obtained “without full disclosure of vital records and circumstances,” before directing Satyanarayan to appear before the State Tiger Strike Force on September 21.
3
The investigation began after four alleged poachers were arrested on July 23 on the Gwalior-Agra highway with 10 leopard skins; investigators subsequently traced the skins to Madhya Pradesh and examined their alleged hunting, procurement and movement.
4
During the Supreme Court hearing, the bench asked whether Satyanarayan had been keeping leopards at home. His lawyer, Siddharth Dave, replied: “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.”
5
Satyanarayan’s petitions were filed through advocate-on-record B. Shravant Shanker, while Dave argued that failing to appear before investigators on a particular date should not be treated as non-cooperation or evidence that Satyanarayan was absconding.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
8
Articles
11
Reach
19
A
AnonymousAuthor
