No Bar On Trade In Ornamental Fish Species Not Protected Under Wildlife Law: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that there is no bar on fishing, cultivation, trade or business in ornamental fish species not protected under wildlife laws. It clarified that the prohibition continues to apply to Channa barca, an endangered species included in the Schedule to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The Court also held that there was no requirement to constitute an expert committee to distinguish Channa barca from similar ornamental fish species, observing that sufficient scientific literature for such identification is already available with the Zoological Survey of India.

Justice Devashis Baruah observed:

“There is no prohibition subject to compliance of the necessary provisions of law upon the petitioners from carrying on fishing, cultivation, trade, or business in respect to the species of fishes, namely, Channa stewartii; Channa bleheri and Channa aurantimaculata. However, the petitioners shall not carry on any fishing, cultivation, trade, or business in respect to the fish species namely, Channa barca, as the said species is an endangered species and is included in the Schedule of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.”

The Court further clarified that the liberty granted would remain subject to the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and the rules framed thereunder.

The petitioners, who are engaged in the farming and trade of ornamental fish species, namely Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri and Channa aurantimaculata, had approached the High Court alleging harassment by authorities owing to the similarity of these species with Channa barca. They sought the constitution of an expert committee to identify and differentiate the fish species and directions permitting them to continue their trade and business activities.

During the hearing, the petitioners produced a report dated March 27, 2025, issued by the Zoological Survey of India, which confirmed that the fish seized from them were not Channa barca but Channa stewartii. The report was taken on record and marked as document "X".

Relying on the report, the Court observed that scientific literature already exists to distinguish Channa barca from other ornamental fish species and that it was for the authorities concerned to devise an identification procedure based on such literature.

The Court therefore rejected the plea for constitution of an expert committee, holding:

“As already literatures are available by which the Zoological Survey of India is able to distinguish the species, as would be apparent from the document which is kept on record and marked with the letter 'X', it is the opinion of this Court that there is no requirement of constitution of an expert committee to identify and distinguish the various species...”

The Court also took note of the Forest Department's stand that only Channa barca is protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and that there is no prohibition on the fishing, cultivation or trade of Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri and Channa aurantimaculata.

The Forest Department, however, pointed out that traders could obtain verification certificates from the competent authority confirming that the species being traded are not protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and must ensure compliance with the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petitions with directions that, subject to compliance with applicable laws, there was no restriction on the petitioners carrying on fishing, cultivation, trade or business in non-protected ornamental fish species, while reiterating that no such activities could be undertaken in respect of Channa barca.

Case Name: Sridham Sarkar & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors. (along with Noren Moran & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.)

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 96

Case Number: WP(C) No. 1743 of 2025 (Connected with WP(C) No. 1376 of 2024)

Click Here To Read Judgement