Trade in non-scheduled Channa species is permissible, subject to wildlife and biodiversity laws.

The petitioners in both writ petitions were engaged in farming and trading ornamental fish, principally Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri and Channa aurantimaculata.

They alleged harassment by forest authorities because these species resembled Channa barca, a protected fish species under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and sought constitution of an expert committee for species identification and directions permitting their fishing, cultivation and trade in the non-protected species.

Certain fish specimens seized from the petitioners were examined by the Zoological Survey of India.

Its report dated 27 March 2025 identified the specimens as Channa stewartii and not Channa barca.

The Forest Department stated that only Channa barca was protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and that there was no restriction on the trade of the other three species, subject to compliance with applicable laws and certification requirements.

Whether an expert committee was required to be constituted for identifying and differentiating Channa barca from Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri and Channa aurantimaculata.

Whether the petitioners could lawfully undertake fishing, cultivation, trade or business in Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri and Channa aurantimaculata, subject to compliance with applicable statutory requirements.

The Court applied the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, under which Channa barca was treated as a protected and endangered species included in the statutory Schedule, thereby prohibiting fishing, cultivation, trade or business in that species.

The Court held that the other three species were not protected under that Act and could be dealt with in the absence of a statutory prohibition, subject to compliance with the Act and Rules.

It also made the proposed activities subject to the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Rules framed thereunder, including sustainable use, fair and equitable benefit-sharing, and any collection charges leviable by Biodiversity Management Committees under Section 41(3).

For species identification, the Court relied on the available scientific literature and the Zoological Survey of India’s identification report rather than requiring constitution of a separate expert committee.

The Court reasoned that the Zoological Survey of India had successfully distinguished the seized specimens from Channa barca by applying existing scientific literature and had identified them as Channa stewartii.

Since reliable literature and an established scientific method for differentiating the species were available, constitution of a new expert committee was unnecessary.

The Court further relied on the Forest Department’s categorical position that only Channa barca was protected and that no restriction had been imposed on trade in the other species.

Accordingly, the petitioners could pursue activities involving the three non-protected species, but only after obtaining necessary verification or certification and complying with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and the applicable Rules.

The Court declined to direct constitution of an expert committee because existing literature and the Zoological Survey of India’s report were sufficient to identify and differentiate the relevant fish species.

It held that the petitioners were not prohibited, subject to compliance with applicable law, from fishing, cultivating, trading or carrying on business in Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri and Channa aurantimaculata.

However, they were prohibited from undertaking such activities in respect of Channa barca, which the Court recognised as an endangered species included in the Schedule to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

All directions remained subject to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and the Rules framed under those enactments; there was no order as to costs.