KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has noted that seizing animals and birds and the sealing of shops in Saddar birds market by the personnel of the Sindh Wildlife Department (SWD) came within four corners of law, as the shopkeepers were doing business without valid permission.

The SHC also directed the department to keep the seized animals and birds in safe and conducive conditions since the same were being categorised as “protected species”.

A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC comprising Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro further stated that if intended to continue with the trade of birds and animals, the petitioners may approach the wildlife department for permission and the same be considered in accordance with law.

The bench ruled that its earlier order passed on Jan 19, about de-sealing of the shops will remain intact, but the petitioners must not engage in illicit trade of birds and animals.

It further directed the wildlife department to ensure that the illicit trade of wildlife and birds is curbed at all levels.

The bench issued such directives while disposing of a petition filed against seizing of animals and birds and sealing the shops in the birds market in Saddar.

The petitioners submitted that they were shopkeepers and continuously carrying on lawful business at the birds market for the last 12 to 15 years.

However, they asserted that the personnel of wildlife department had illegally raided the market on Jan 14, seized birds, animals, cages, and cash and also unlawfully sealed more than 50 shops.

A provincial law officer argued that the petitioners and their associates were involved in illegal wildlife trade, which warranted action strictly in accordance with the Sindh Wildlife Protection Act, 2020.

A report of the deputy conservator wildlife Karachi said that the seized animals and birds belonged to foreign origin and mostly were “protected species”.

The bench in its order noted that under the applicable law, a permission was required to engage in trade of wildlife that included birds and such trade without permission was an offence.

When confronted, the counsel for petitioners failed to place on record any valid permission from the competent authority for doing business of wildlife mammals and birds.

In such circumstances, it observed that the law has empowered the wildlife officers or any other law enforcement agency, to prevent the commission of any offence under the law and may take cognisance of the same.

“The respondent wildlife department conducted search of the premises operated by petitioners and found petitioners and other persons involved in the trade of birds and animals without valid permission, as such took possession birds and animals and sealed the shops. The action taken by the respondents fell within the four corners of law, as such did not require interference”, it added.

Without looking into disputed questions of fact which may require evidence and more appropriately examined by the competent forum, the bench also noted that the welfare, safety, and protection of the seized birds and animals remained a matter of paramount concern.

Published in Dawn, January 26th, 2026