The Supreme Court has issued a directive mandating the government to ban the possession, trade, and display of wildlife parts—such as bones, horns, and other animal remains. The full text of the order, issued last year by a division bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Til Prasad Shrestha, has now been made public.

As per the court’s ruling, the government must issue a public notice requiring citizens to voluntarily surrender any wildlife trophies in their possession, especially if they lack proper permits or ownership certificates. Those who comply within the specified deadline will not face legal repercussions. The court emphasized that the process should encourage voluntary compliance by offering sufficient time and clarity.

The ruling draws a clear distinction between wildlife parts acquired before and after the enactment of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973. Individuals possessing parts obtained prior to the Act’s enforcement must acquire permits verifying ancestral inheritance or cultural and religious value. However, any parts acquired after the Act’s promulgation must be handed over to the government without exception.

Failure to comply following the issuance of the government notice will result in legal action under existing wildlife protection laws.

The court further directed the government to meticulously document all surrendered items, assigning each a unique identification code. Authorities must then decide whether to preserve, destroy, or utilize the items for scientific research, such as DNA studies. If destruction is chosen, it must be conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.

To ensure effective enforcement, the ruling also calls for public awareness campaigns, especially in communities near national parks, to highlight the illegality of possessing wildlife parts.

The court underscored that properly regulating, documenting, and destroying confiscated wildlife parts will help curb demand, deter poaching, and reinforce Nepal’s commitment to global conservation goals. It also minimizes the risk of these items being diverted back into the black market through theft or corruption.

The court noted that the symbolic destruction of animal parts—such as through public burning—would send a strong message: that wildlife should be respected and preserved in their natural, living form, not treated as trophies.