Karnataka HC issues notice over African Grey parrot in CID custody
Synopsis
A Bengaluru man who nursed an injured African Grey parrot for six years had the bird seized by the CID's Mobile Forest Squad — and now the Karnataka High Court has stepped in, issuing notices to the state government and the CID. The case tests where compassionate care ends and wildlife law begins.
Key Takeaways
The Karnataka High Court , led by Justice C.M.
Poonacha , issued notices on 14 October 2026 over the seizure of an African Grey parrot .
Mahesh Kumar of Rajajinagar, Bengaluru says he has nursed the injured bird since 2018 with no commercial intent.
The CID's Mobile Forest Squad seized the parrot on 27 July and issued a notice on 31 July warning of action under Section 35(3) of the BNS .
Notices were issued to the Chief Secretary , Principal Secretary of the Forest Department , and the CID Mobile Forest Squad .
The matter is next listed on 3 November .
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, 14 October 2026, issued notices to the Karnataka state government, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), and other concerned authorities on a petition seeking the return of an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) seized by the CID's Mobile Forest Squad from a Bengaluru resident's home. The bench, headed by Justice C.M. Poonacha, heard the petition filed by R. Mahesh Kumar, a resident of Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, who has been caring for the bird since 2018.
Background: A Bird Taken in, Not Bought
Mahesh Kumar stated in his petition that a friend had given him the injured African Grey parrot in 2018, when the bird was unable to fly due to a dysfunctional wing. He nursed it back to health and continued to provide care out of compassion, with no commercial intent. He contended that he had neither purchased the parrot nor kept it for any commercial purpose — the bird was, by his account, a rescued animal under his care.
The CID's Action and the Notice
Officials of the CID's Mobile Forest Squad seized the parrot from Kumar's residence on 27 July. On 31 July, they issued a notice directing him to cooperate with the investigation and produce relevant documents. According to the petitioner, the officials warned that non-compliance could result in a case being registered under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Kumar has sought both the quashing of this notice and the return of the parrot.
What the Court Directed
The High Court issued notices to the Chief Secretary of the Karnataka government, the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department, and the CID's Mobile Forest Squad. It also directed the public prosecutor to gather the necessary information from the respondents and place it before the court. The matter has been adjourned to 3 November.
Why This Case Matters
The African Grey parrot is listed under Appendix I of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), making its commercial trade internationally prohibited. Possession of such a bird in India without documentation can attract action under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. However, the petitioner's case — that the bird was handed to him injured and kept without any trade — raises a nuanced question about the legal treatment of rescued or informally rehabilitated protected species. Notably, this is not the first time Indian courts have been asked to balance wildlife protection law against private acts of compassionate care for injured animals.
Point of View
But it offers little structured pathway for private citizens who informally rehabilitate injured protected animals. The CID's invocation of the BNS against a man who reportedly nursed a bird for six years — rather than pursuing documented traffickers — raises legitimate questions about enforcement priorities. Courts have increasingly been drawn into these micro-custody disputes, often because the Forest Department lacks a formal rescue-and-return protocol. The Karnataka HC's decision to seek information from all parties is prudent; the real test will be whether the system can distinguish a bird-lover from a wildlife criminal.
NationPress
14 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the CID seize the African Grey parrot from the Bengaluru resident?
The CID's Mobile Forest Squad seized the African Grey parrot from R. Mahesh Kumar's residence in Rajajinagar, Bengaluru on 27 July , reportedly as part of an investigation into possession of a CITES-listed protected species. The African Grey parrot is listed under Appendix I of CITES, and possession without documentation can attract action under India's Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
What is R. Mahesh Kumar's defence in the Karnataka HC petition?
Kumar contends that he neither purchased the parrot nor kept it for commercial purposes. According to the petition, a friend gave him the injured bird in 2018 when it could not fly due to a dysfunctional wing, and he nursed it back to health out of compassion. He has sought both the return of the bird and the quashing of the CID's notice.
What did the Karnataka High Court order?
The Karnataka HC bench led by Justice C.M. Poonacha issued notices to the Karnataka state government, the CID's Mobile Forest Squad, the Chief Secretary, and the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department. It directed the public prosecutor to gather information from the respondents and adjourned the matter to 3 November .
What is the African Grey parrot's legal status in India?
The African Grey parrot ( Psittacus erithacus ) is listed under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), meaning its commercial trade is internationally prohibited. In India, possession of such a species without proper documentation can attract penalties under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
What legal provision did the CID cite against the petitioner?
According to the petitioner, CID officials warned that failure to comply with their notice could result in a case being registered under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) . Kumar has challenged this notice before the Karnataka High Court.
