'Balance Of Convenience Lies Against Immediate Capture Of Arikomban': Kerala High Court Constitutes Expert Committee
The Kerala High Court was of the firm view that under the present circumstances, the balance of convenience would lie against the immediate capture of the wild tusker ‘Arikomban’, a rogue elephant which is causing disturbances in human settlements near Munnar.Taking note of the 'deplorable state' of captive elephants, as well as various instances of cruelty meted out to them, the...
The Kerala High Court was of the firm view that under the present circumstances, the balance of convenience would lie against the immediate capture of the wild tusker ‘Arikomban’, a rogue elephant which is causing disturbances in human settlements near Munnar.
Taking note of the 'deplorable state' of captive elephants, as well as various instances of cruelty meted out to them, the Court wondered whether the pachyderm should be consigned to a life in captivity.
"Adding another wild elephant to that list of hapless ‘converts’ would run counter to our fundamental duty to protect wildlife and have compassion for living creatures, as envisaged under Art.51A (g) of our Constitution," the Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. observed.
The elephant had allegedly been foraging into the Chinnakanal area, and causing damage to the property in the human settlement areas. Vide its order dated March 25, 2023, the Court had directed the Forest and Wildlife Department to refrain from capturing the tusker.
While taking note of the concerns raised by the residents of the Chinnakanal and Santhampara localities, the Court observed that the same would have to be balanced with that of the interests of the elephant in question, in order to arrive at a lasting solution to the problem posed by the animal.
"Today it is Arikomban, tomorrow it will be some other elephant. As long as settlements are coming near forest areas, we need to think of a solution," the Court orally observed during the hearing today.
In this regard, the Court added that it would have to examine the circumstances under which the settlers came to be rehabilitated in areas that the Court was told, had been recognized as 'elephant corridors' at the time of their rehabilitation.
"If it’s a resettlement that has taken place into an area that was admittedly an elephant habitat, your policy makers went way off board. We will look into that and if we find that it was done ignoring scientific reports to the contrary, we will have no difficulty in bringing them to task. Let the reports come. If resettlement was in elephant habitat, that is a gross negligence of policy makers," the Court came down heavily upon the State during the oral hearings today.
It thus went on to note in its order that an animal could not be punished for its aggression solely based on the layman's perceptions as to the threat that might be posed by it. It noted that the interests of the people would not be served simply by targeted intervention against one elephant alone, when a herd of elephants had been foraging in the area.
"To punish an animal for its aggression based solely on a layman’s perception of its motives, and nothing more, would not amount to rendering justice to the animal in any sense of the term. On the contrary, the State would be in breach of its constitutional duty to protect its wildlife. The interests of the people in the locality also will not be safeguarded through targeted and irreversible action against just one elephant when a herd of elephants is stated to be foraging in the area," the Court reminded.
Constitution of Expert Committee
The Court had enquired today as to the steps taken for the protection of people in the locality and the forces deployed for the same. It was informed by the State government that Forest and Wildlife Department personnel had been deployed to keep vigil in the areas where the elephant is known to frequent, assisted by kumki elephants. The Court also noted that the kumki elephants had in fact, shown themselves to be more dominant than Arikomban, because of which the elephant could be prevented from encroaching in the human settlements.
The Court also took note of the submissions made by the officers of the forest department (The Chief Conservator of Forests (High Range Circle) and the Veterinary specialist) that the animal had not caused any damage to human life in the recent past, although there had been several instances of property damage.
The Court thus observed that ordering for capture of Arikomban at this stage would prove to be dangerous for both the Forest Department personnel that had been deployed, as well as the animal concerned. It took note that the animal that was currently in ‘musth’ was moving in the company of its herd comprising females and calves.
It is in this regard that the Court found it appropriate at this stage to direct the constitution of a five member Committee of Experts (CoE) to advise it on matters pertaining to Human-Elephant conflict situations arising in the State.
It noted that such a Committee was necessary in order to explore other options for preventing the animal from straying into human settlements, and to avoid taking any 'quick-fix knee-jerk actions' in this regard.
The CoE comprising Arun R.S., the Chief Conservator of Forests (High Range Circle), Kottayam; Pramod H., Chief Conservator of Forests & Field Director, Project Tiger, Kottayam; Dr. NVK Ashraf, the Chief Veterinarian and Vice-President, Wildlife Trust of India; Dr. P.S. Easa, the Chairman of Care Earth Trust, Chennai; and Senior Advocate Ramesh Babu who was appointed as the Amicus Curiae, was thus directed to be convened within a few days to consider the data pertaining to Arikomban.
It was observed by the Court that such consideration and analysis of the data by the Committee was necessary in order to advice the Court of other possibilities apart from capture of the elephant.
"The CoE shall keep in mind that the ultimate object of the exercise is to strike a balance between the conflicting interests of the residents of the localities concerned and the animal in question and towards this end they may also take into consideration the views of the people in the localities concerned or their representatives," the Court reminded.
The Committee was directed to submit the report in this regard before the Court by the next date of posting.
The Court was also quick to add that in the event of a situation arising where Arikomban posed a threat to the personnel deployed, it would be open for the latter to tranquilize the elephant and immobilize it for the limited purposes of fastening a radio collar on it that would help them keep track of the animal and monitor its movements till the next date of posting. The Court hoped that by this time, the report of the Committee would be available to it for deciding the next course of action.
'Capture of Arikomban an Inevitable Necessity': Counter Affidavit by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Kerala States
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Kerala, told the Court through the Counter Affidavit that was filed, that the Kerala Forest Department was following all the scientific principles and procedure laid down by the MoEFCC to capture the tusker 'Arikomban', and that the decision of the Chief Wildlife Warden was not arbitrary in this regard. It was submitted that the decision was necessary in light of the existing human animal conflict in the Chinnakannal/ Santhanpara area, and the capture of the tusker had become an 'inevitable necessity'. It was added that the present human-animal conflict was beyond the control of the forces deployed there.
It was submitted that the normal lives of people and the school going children had become difficult, and that people were at additional risk when they ventured out during dawn, dusk, and night. In spite of the Forest Department putting 24X7 monitoring of the animal, damage to houses could not be prevented. It was submitted that 34 human deaths had occurred in the Chinnakanal Santhnapara area since 2005.
It was averred that it is in this context that based on recommendations, the Chief Wildlife Warden had ordered that the elephant had to be located and i. to tranquilize the animal and be release deep inside forest after radio collaring, or ii. to attach GSM collar on the animal and release back and monitor, incase the animal is not able to be taken into the truck due to difficult terrain situation, or iii. to tranquilize and put it in captivity.
After discussion on the three options, it was decided to build an 'elephant Kraal' at the elephant camp in Kaprikkad, Kalady, Kodanad, and to create necessary teams for capturing the elephant. It was submitted that as per the recommendations of the Senior Forest Officers, releasing the elephant to the deep forest area would not be a good option, since it would only amount to "transferring the problem from one place to another".
It was averred that the capture proposal and procedure was prepared as per the Field Manual for managing Human - Elephant conflict released by the MoEF and Climate Change which also provides the SOP for capturing wild elephants in conflict. It was added that other measures were also taken by the Forest Department to mitigate human-elephant conflicts in the area.
It was submitted that while capture of Arikomban would not be a permanent solution to the problem, it would be helpful in reducing chronic Human-Elephant conflict situation in the area. It was added that in case capture of the tusker and loading into truck was not possible after darting and tranquilization the animal, the only option would be to leave the animal with GSM radio collaring.
It is after hearing these submissions that the Court passed the aforementioned directions today.
The matter has been posted for further consideration on April 5, 2023.
Case Title: In Re Bruno v. Union of India & Ors.