When the legal battle reached the bench, the accused snake rescuer defended his actions by maintaining that he neither harmed the king cobra nor uploaded any related photos or videos to social media. After examining the arguments from both sides, the court ultimately dismissed the entire case brought forward by the state government.
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the ongoing criminal proceedings against snake rescuer Dr. P. Gowri Shankar. He had faced allegations of capturing a king cobra and keeping it in captivity while taking photographs of it. On November 2, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde ordered the cancellation of the legal action initiated against him.
The High Court observed that the available allegations and materials failed to establish that the petitioner had kept the snake in confinement, injured or killed it, or uploaded any pictures to social media platforms. The case against Dr. P. Gowri Shankar originated from content posted online, in which he appeared within a video that had actually been uploaded by a third party.
Following the registration of a case under multiple provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the petitioner moved to challenge the trial court proceedings. His defense argued that the chargesheet did not contain any proof that he hunted or captured the king cobra. Furthermore, the photographs presented by the state government showed the reptile in an open forest environment rather than under any form of captivity.
In contrast, the state government argued that the contents of the chargesheet indicated the petitioner allowed other individuals to photograph the king cobra, which ultimately led to the media uploads. However, the High Court noted that the state failed to substantiate its claim that the king cobra was actually captured by the petitioner himself.
The court pointed out that the photographs in question were sourced from social media rather than being recovered directly from the petitioner. It also took note of the fact that he had previously informed forest authorities on multiple occasions whenever he rescued king cobras. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the alleged offenses and dismissed the matter entirely.
