Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Authorities To Decide On Rehabilitation Of Elephants In Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve
While hearing a plea on the welfare of elephants, focusing on their rehabilitation and treatment in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the respondent authorities to finalize its decision on the rehabilitation of the elephants as per the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act.A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and...
While hearing a plea on the welfare of elephants, focusing on their rehabilitation and treatment in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the respondent authorities to finalize its decision on the rehabilitation of the elephants as per the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain in its October 14 order said,"In view of aforesaid, respondents are directed to take final decision in consonance with Section 11 (1)(a) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 specially second proviso thereof and file status report before the next date of hearing, specifically stating that how many live elephants are in their captivity and under what orders? Respondents are also at liberty to take help from Centre for Elephants Studies College of Veterinary Animal Sciences, Kerala, if so required. Since the respondents have sought 2-3 months' time to file compliance report, let the matter be posted in the week commencing 16.12.2024".
For context, Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act pertains to the hunting of wild animals to be permitted in certain cases. Section 11(1)(a) states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in force and subject to the provisions of the chapter on Protected Areas, the Chief Wild Life Warden may, if he is satisfied that any wild animal specified in Schedule I has become "dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased" which is beyond recovery, in a written order while stating his reasons, permit any person to hunt such animal or cause such animal to be hunted.
The second proviso however states that "provided no such captured animal shall be kept in captivity unless the Chief Wild Life Warden is satisfied that such animal cannot be rehabilitated in the wild and the reasons for the same are recorded in writing".
The order notes that the respondent authorities–which includes the Union of India presented a compliance report to the court stating that the expert committee which was constituted on July 26 had given its report to the Chief Wild Life Warden (CWLW) of the State on September 19.
It was submitted that based on this report the Competent Authority under Section 11(1)(a) of the Wild Life Protection Act shall take a final decision on the rehabilitation of the elephant maintained in Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, within a short time.
The respondents informed the court that in case the committee adopts the rehabilitation plan, an additional 2-3 months will be required to obtain a satellite collar for the elephant. The collar will monitor the animal's movement, behaviour and wildlife herd interaction which can provide scientific expertise and data support for this pioneering effort in the State. The compliance report further stated that 10 elephants are in captivity and the respondents have decided to release 1 elephant out of them.
Meanwhile, the petitioner contended that the respondents are keeping the elephants in captivity and in the process giving inhuman treatment. It was argued that in fact two out of the 10 elephants had died, and this fact was concealed from the court by the respondents. This submission was however disputed by the counsel for the respondents.
In the last hearing, Petitioner, in context to the Committee Report on Behavioral Assessment, Rehabilitation Strategies and Addressing Human-Elephant Conflict of Rescued Wild Elephants stated that the Committee consists of Officers who have no specialization in handling of elephants.
The Advocate General submitted a memo along with an affidavit pointing out that out of the two elephants which were captured by the State Authorities, one is under the process of rehabilitation and another being injured is given treatment and after treatment, that elephant would also be rehabilitated.
On the suggestion of the High Court an expert had connected through Video Conferencing from Thrissur, Kerala, which has a sizable elephant population in the wild and instead of taking the help of such experts from different States, authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh have formed a Committee which in the estimation of the petitioner, is not appropriate.
The petitioner stated that this is not an adversarial litigation but the petitioner is trying to assist the authorities in the proper rehabilitation of wild elephants as he has a love and passion for animals.
Case title: Nitin Singhvi Vs Union Of India And Others
Case no: WP-22959-2018