Tiger claw pendant case: Actor-politician Jaggesh gets relief from High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday gave relief to BJP MP and Kannada actor Jaggesh by staying the notice issued to him by the Forest Department for wearing a tiger claw pendant. A Single Bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order.

The Forest Department had issued the notice and conducted search operations at the residence of Jaggesh in Bengaluru after a video in which he proudly displays the tiger claw pendant claiming that it was a gift from his mother and is a real tiger claw went viral on social media.

The action by the Forest Department was questioned by Jaggesh. His Counsel submitted that “The notice issued by the Forest Department sleuths should be withdrawn. Before answering the notice, a team of 14 officers had raided the house and thrown all articles of the house here and there. I have been defamed based on the statement made in the interview. In this background, the action by the Forest Department must be declared as illegal.”

As the Forest Department sleuths raided the house of Jaggesh in just an hour after serving the notice, the High Court granted interim stay order. Also, the Court observed that why time was not given to Jaggesh to reply to the notice? Is it for publicity the house of Jaggesh was raided?

The Counsel, who appeared for Jaggesh, said that the notice served to Jaggesh on Oct. 25 instructed Jaggesh to hand over the tiger claw pendant if he had one. But within one hour of serving the notice, the Forest Department Officers visited the house and conducted search.

The Public Prosecutor argued that the Forest Department Officers visited the house following information that the tiger claw pendant would be destroyed.

Justice Nagaprasanna, who was surprised with the statement of the Public Prosecutor, said: “Who gave the information within one hour of serving the notice to Jaggesh. It looks like it                                    is for publicity.”

Senior counsel Prabhuling Navadagi, who appeared for Jaggesh, maintained that the action against his client was against the law.

This post was published on October 31, 2023 7:35 pm