According to reports, the actor submitted details of the items as part of the state's declaration process related to wildlife possessions. The collection reportedly includes religious sculptures depicting deities such as Lord Krishna, Lord Rama and Tirupati Balaji, along with several elephant tusks. The total weight of the declared ivory artefacts is estimated to be around 46 kilograms.

The development comes against the backdrop of a case dating back to 2011, when authorities first discovered elephant tusks and ivory items at Mohanlal’s residence in Kochi.

Forest officials said the actor had previously disclosed possession of four elephant tusks. The latest declaration includes six additional tusks and 13 ivory-based artefacts, prompting officials to undertake a fresh examination of the collection. Authorities are also considering scientific verification, including DNA testing, to establish the origin and authenticity of the items.

Mohanlal has maintained that the objects were either inherited or received as gifts and were not acquired through illegal means.

The controversy began during an Income Tax Department search operation at the actor’s residence in the Thevara area of Kochi in 2011. While the raid was reportedly focused on financial documents and related records, officials came across elephant tusks and ivory artefacts displayed inside the house.

Under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, possession of elephant ivory is heavily regulated, and ownership requires compliance with specific legal provisions and declarations. Following the discovery, forest authorities seized the items and initiated legal proceedings.

At the time, Mohanlal stated that the tusks belonged to a domesticated elephant that had died of natural causes. He argued that the tusks had been retained as memorabilia and claimed he was unaware of the legal requirements governing possession of such items.

Subsequent developments saw the Kerala government grant him permission to formally declare the tusks. In 2016, the actor was issued an ownership certificate, a move that later became the subject of legal challenges.

Over the years, the case has moved through multiple legal forums. Mohanlal challenged proceedings initiated by a lower court before the Kerala High Court and obtained interim relief for an extended period. He also sought withdrawal of the case through representations to the state government, but those requests were ultimately rejected.

A major turn came in 2025 when the Kerala High Court reportedly examined petitions filed by retired forest officials and wildlife conservation activists. During the proceedings, the court held that the ownership certificate granted to the actor was not legally sustainable and declared it invalid.

However, the court stopped short of directing criminal prosecution against the actor. The ruling nevertheless reopened questions regarding the status and origin of the ivory items linked to the case.

The latest declaration before the Forest Department is expected to become part of the ongoing verification process. Officials are now examining the newly disclosed items and assessing whether further investigation is required under wildlife protection laws.

The case has attracted significant public attention due to Mohanlal’s stature in the Indian film industry and the broader concerns surrounding wildlife conservation and illegal ivory possession. Conservation groups have long argued that strict enforcement of wildlife laws is necessary to discourage the trade and possession of protected animal products.

For now, the Forest Department is expected to continue its scrutiny of the declared artefacts while determining the next legal and procedural steps. Further action will likely depend on the outcome of scientific examinations and the findings of wildlife authorities.

The Kerala High Court has intervened in what is being described as a massive Kerala data privacy breach, involving the unauthorized use of personal contact details of nearly 5 lakh government employees and judicial officers. On Tuesday, the court expressed "strong displeasure" over the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) sending unsolicited election-related WhatsApp messages and has temporarily banned the practice.

A "Serious Violation" of the Right to Privacy

The controversy erupted after roughly 500,000 individuals—including government staff, judges, and welfare beneficiaries—received WhatsApp messages featuring Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's photograph. The messages highlighted government achievements, such as a 10% Dearness Allowance (DA) hike, ahead of the 2026 Assembly Elections.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while hearing a petition, remarked that the initiative lacked any semblance of privacy. The court raised critical questions regarding the source of this data, specifically pointing to the SPARK portal—a dedicated e-governance system intended strictly for salary processing and administrative records.

"Using administrative data for political propaganda is a serious violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023," the Court observed.

Key Highlights of the Court's Ruling

• Immediate Ban: The court has prohibited the CMO from sending further unsolicited messages until the legal source of the data is verified.

• Data Leak Suspicion: There is a strong suspicion that private mobile numbers were improperly transferred from the SPARK portal to the CMO via the Kerala State IT Mission.

• Accountability: The court has demanded to know who manages the "WhatsApp Business Account" used for these messages, noting that personal data should not be accessible for political campaigning without explicit consent.

Why This Matters for the 2026 Elections

Kerala is currently the only state in India where the Left Democratic Front (LDF) remains in power. As the state gears up for the 2026 Assembly Elections, which are expected to be announced by mid-March, the political stakes are at an all-time high.

While the LDF made history by winning back-to-back terms in 2021, the opposition Congress-led UDF and the BJP—fresh off local wins in Thiruvananthapuram—are capitalizing on this Kerala data privacy breach to highlight concerns over "state-sponsored surveillance."

Legal Implications under the DPDP Act 2023

This case serves as one of the first major tests for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in a political context. Legal experts suggest that if the CMO is found to have used "informed consent" data for purposes other than what was intended (salary and service), it could set a massive precedent for how political parties handle citizen data across India.

Practical Takeaways for Citizens:

• Data Rights: Under the new Act, individuals have the right to know how their data is being processed.

• Reporting: If you receive unsolicited political messages on platforms like WhatsApp, you can report them as "spam" or file a grievance if you suspect your data was leaked from a government database.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court's stance sends a clear message: administrative databases are not a tool for electioneering. As the state moves toward the polls, the focus remains on whether the government can justify the "legal basis" for accessing the private numbers of half a million citizens. The next hearing is scheduled for Friday, which may determine the long-term digital campaign strategies for all parties involved.