Gauhati HC Clears Ornamental Fish Traders: Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri and Channa aurantimaculata Not Protected Under Wildlife Act

Tinsukia fish farmers caught up in Channa barca poaching confusion win relief as the Gauhati High Court rules three ornamental species face no trade bar under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Ornamental fish farmers and traders from Tinsukia district, Assam, who had faced repeated harassment by forest authorities over alleged possession of the protected and endangered Channa barca, have received relief from the Gauhati High Court. Justice Devashis Baruah, sitting singly, disposed of two connected writ petitions on 17 July 2026, holding that Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri, and Channa aurantimaculata are not protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and that no prohibition exists on fishing, cultivating, or trading those three species, subject to compliance with applicable law. The court declined to constitute an expert identification committee, finding that scientific literature already available with the Zoological Survey of India is sufficient for species differentiation.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The two writ petitions — WP(C)/1743/2025 filed by Sridham Sarkar and Jadu Sarkar, and the linked WP(C)/1376/2024 filed by Noren Moran and three others — were taken up together because they raised identical issues. All petitioners are residents of villages in Tinsukia district and described themselves as engaged in farming and trading ornamental fish species, principally Channa stewartii (locally known as Kola Cheng), Channa bleheri (Deu Cheng), and Channa aurantimaculata (Naga Cheng).

The petitioners said they had been harassed by forest authorities because of the visual similarity between these three species and Channa barca, a fish listed in the Schedule of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. They sought two reliefs: first, the constitution of an expert committee to identify and formally differentiate Channa barca from the three traded species; and second, directions permitting them to carry on their fishing, cultivation, and trade activities without interference.

Mr. U.S. Bora appeared for the petitioners. Mr. D. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, represented the Forest Department of the Government of Assam.

Seized Fish Found to Be Channa stewartii, Not Channa barca

During the proceedings, it emerged that forest authorities had seized certain ornamental fish from the petitioners and sent the specimens to the Freshwater Fish Section of the Zoological Survey of India for identification. That examination produced a report dated 27 March 2025, issued by a Scientist-C at the Zoological Survey of India. The report confirmed that the seized fish were not Channa barca (Hamilton 1822) but were in fact Channa stewartii (Playfair 1867).

Counsel for the petitioners placed this report before the court. Justice Baruah marked it on record as document “X” and drew the central inference from it: if the Zoological Survey of India was already able to distinguish the species using available scientific literature, there was no basis for a separate expert committee.

Why the Court Refused an Expert Committee

The petitioners had sought a court-constituted expert body specifically to formalise the process of distinguishing Channa barca from the three ornamental species. The court declined this prayer. Justice Baruah reasoned that literature capable of distinguishing Channa barca from Channa stewartii and the other species already exists and was demonstrated by document “X” itself. The obligation that follows, in the court's view, is on the relevant authorities to devise a procedure for species identification based on that existing literature — not for a fresh expert panel to be constituted by judicial order.

This reasoning effectively placed the procedural burden back on forest and fisheries authorities. The court did not specify what identification procedure should be adopted, leaving that to the departments concerned.

Status of the Three Ornamental Species Under the Wildlife Act

The Forest Department's own affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 in WP(C)/1376/2024, was central to resolving the second prayer. Paragraphs 10 and 14 of that affidavit stated explicitly that the respondent authorities had neither restricted the trade of the three species nor issued any communication restricting such trade, since Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri, and Channa aurantimaculata are not protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The Standing Counsel confirmed this position orally as well. Justice Baruah adopted the department's own affidavit as the basis for the court's direction, making clear that only Channa barca enjoys protection under the Act. The court recorded that there is accordingly no prohibition on the petitioners' activities in respect of the three ornamental species.

Compliance With the Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The Forest Department's affidavit raised a separate compliance dimension. Paragraph 10 of that affidavit pointed out that past cases of Channa barca being traded under the names of similar-looking species had been recorded, including poaching and smuggling cases filed by the Orang Tiger Reserve authorities. The affidavit suggested that species confusion in trade could be reduced through certification of traders and specimens by the Fisheries Department.

The affidavit also highlighted the requirements of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Under Section 41(3) of that Act, Biodiversity Management Committees may levy collection fees from any person accessing biological resources for commercial purposes within their territorial jurisdiction. The affidavit noted that international trade in these species must comply with the access and benefit sharing principles under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Significantly, the petitioners' counsel stated on record that the petitioners had no objection to obtaining the permissions described in paragraph 14 of the affidavit — specifically, a verification certificate from the competent authority confirming that the traded species are not scheduled or protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Directions Issued

Justice Baruah disposed of both writ petitions with four specific directions.

First, no expert committee will be constituted for species identification, since the Zoological Survey of India's existing literature, as reflected in document “X”, is adequate for distinguishing Channa barca from the three ornamental species.

Second, there is no prohibition on the petitioners carrying on fishing, cultivation, trade, or business in Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri, and Channa aurantimaculata, subject to compliance with the necessary provisions of law. The court was explicit that this clearance does not extend to Channa barca, which remains an endangered species listed in the Schedule of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

Third, the clearance granted in the second direction remains subject to the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and its Rules, as well as the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and its Rules.

Fourth, there is no order as to costs.

Outcome

Both WP(C)/1743/2025 and WP(C)/1376/2024 were disposed of on 17 July 2026 by Justice Devashis Baruah of the Gauhati High Court. The court held that Channa stewartii, Channa bleheri, and Channa aurantimaculata are not protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and that the petitioners may continue their ornamental fish trade, subject to compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and the rules made under both statutes. The prayer for an expert identification committee was declined. The Zoological Survey of India report dated 27 March 2025, confirming that the seized fish were Channa stewartii and not Channa barca, was retained on record as document “X”.