Kannada actor Darshan, his wife Vijayalakshmi and their farmhouse manager Nagaraj have approached the Karnataka High Court against the summons issued by a court in T. Narasipura in connection with an alleged wildlife protection case. They have applied for the cancellation of the summons as well as the proceedings initiated against them under the Wildlife Protection Act.
The case pertains to four Bar-headed geese, a protected wildlife species, in a farmhouse of the actor Darshan. It goes back to January 2023, when forest officials searched the farmhouse following information on the presence of protected birds.
Based on the facts in the case, forest officials conducted a raid at Darshan’s farmhouse on January 21, 2023. Four Bar-headed geese were found on the premises, according to the report. As the species is in a protected category under wildlife conservation laws, forest authorities started the investigation and then filed a private complaint before the T. Narasipura court.
After hearing the complaint, the T. Narasipura court issued summons to Darshan, Vijayalakshmi and farmhouse manager Nagaraj. The three have now challenged the summons before the Karnataka High Court and asked for relief from the proceedings.
The petition has an explanation of how the protected birds found themselves in the farmhouse. According to their claim, several species of birds had already been present in the property. The four Bar-headed geese were allegedly with the other birds at the farmhouse, and the petitioners claim they were unaware of the presence of the birds until the forest officials came to check.
The petitioners have maintained that they did not intentionally keep or rear the four protected birds at the farmhouse. Their argument is that the birds were not brought to the property by them and that they had no knowledge that the particular species was present there.
The petition also mentions the frequency of Darshan and Vijayalakshmi visiting the farmhouse. Vijayalakshmi does not visit the farmhouse, and Darshan visits the farmhouse only occasionally. The petitioners have relied on these circumstances in trying to establish their alleged role in keeping the protected birds.
The legal issue is whether the birds at the farmhouse are the responsibility of the petitioners and whether they are collectively responsible under the wildlife protection laws. The Wildlife Protection Act contains provisions to prevent unlawful possession, capture, trade and exploitation of protected wildlife.
The case also brings into focus the responsibilities of property owners and managers when protected wildlife occurs on private premises. A wild bird on land does not mean it was intentionally captured or kept; and the circumstances of it being there can come into play in a legal case.
Darshan’s new petition comes at a time of continued legal attention for him and for the actor. His decision to seek the High Court indicates that he and the other petitioners are trying to prevent the proceedings initiated by the lower court from continuing.
The High Court will consider the grounds raised in the petition and the material before it decides whether the summons and the proceedings should be quashed. But petitioning does not by itself establish the innocence or guilt of the accused, and the allegations remain subject to judicial consideration.
The wildlife case is likely to be of interest to Darshan’s fans as well as to those involved in legal and environmental issues in Karnataka. The investigation will determine whether the forest authorities’ accusations can be upheld against the actor, his wife and the farmhouse manager.
As the matter moves before the Karnataka High Court, the central issue will be whether the petitioners had any role in keeping or possessing the protected birds found during the 2023 inspection and whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the T. Narasipura court should continue.
