Wild Animals Strike Human Settlements Irrespective Of State-Borders: Kerala High Court Calls For Cooperation With Karnataka And TN Govts
The Kerala High Court has urged the State governments of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, which share forest covered borders, to act in tandem against the rising issue of man-animal conflict,The bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P was dealing with a suo motu case on the issue when an incident was brought to its notice whereby a Wayanad resident was attacked within...
The Kerala High Court has urged the State governments of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, which share forest covered borders, to act in tandem against the rising issue of man-animal conflict,
The bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P was dealing with a suo motu case on the issue when an incident was brought to its notice whereby a Wayanad resident was attacked within the precincts of his home, by an elephant apparently collared by forest authorities in Karnataka.
It thus called for a "purposive co-operation" among the states to fulfil the constitutional guarantees afforded to the citizens, irrespective of where they reside.
“State borders exist only for the human population and not for the animals who roam freely through the forests adjacent to human settlements in all the three States. The hapless human victims of such conflicts, however, suffer alike, whether they are situated within the geographical bounds of one or the other State” said the Court and urged the three governments to arrive at an agreement for mutual cooperation for the resolution of such issues. “This is the spirit of Art.1 of our Constitution that declares "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States" added the court.
The bench directed the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Kerala to submit a plan enumerating the short term steps that will be taken to prevent wild animals straying into human settlements in Wayanad District. The bench added that such plan ought to be implemented within a month supplemented by long term measures that will be implemented simultaneously in a phased manner.
The court remarked that “asking them to wait any longer for a reprieve through state action would tantamount to making a mockery of their fundamental right to life and livelihood”.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 13204 of 2021
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 108