Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Bring Back Tusker 'Arikomban' To Its Natural Habitat In Kerala After Relocating Human Settlements

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking the relocation of the elephant 'Arikomban’ back to its natural habitat in Chinnakkanal in Kerala after the tusker was translocated to Periyar Tiger Reserve with the fixation of a radio collar on it, on April 29, due to its habit of invading human settlement areas. After translocation to Periyar Tiger reserve, the elephant had strayed into the forest region of the neighbouring state Tamil Nadu. Since the elephant created a scare by appearing in Cumbom town of Tamil Nadu, the TN authorities further translocated it to Kanyakumari region.

In this background, environmental activists CR Neelakandan and VK Anandan filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking the following reliefs :

1. To direct the State of Kerala to define the traditional migration path of elephants from Annamalai to Periyar via Chinnakkanal area after conducting an extensive study on the area that is to be preserved including the possible extent, the challenges and the way ahead and to and declare the same as ‘elephant corridor’ under “the Elephant Project”;

2. To direct the State of Kerala to prepare a voluntary scheme such as 'Rebuild Kerala Development Scheme' or 'Project Tiger' to relocate human settlements vulnerable to Human- Elephant Conflict incidents in the Chinnakkanal area to a suitable place for land cultivation with necessary amenities along with a suitable compensation within a period of three months;

3. To direct the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to take all necessary measures to bring the elephant known as ‘Arikomban’ back to its natural habitat to Chinnakkanal after relocation of human settlements in the Human- Elephant Conflict affected area within a time frame to be fixed by the court;

4. To direct the State of Tamil Nadu to monitor “Arikomban” for a period of 2 years through the GPS tracker and to conduct periodical examination of Faecal Glucocorticoid Metabolite (FGM) levels and provide medical help if there is any need of the same due to the unnatural variation of the Faecal Glucocorticoid Metabolite (FGM) level;

5. To appoint an expert committee to form standard guidelines to address Human- Elephant Conflict concerns and long term solutions to be followed by the state governments and the Union government while addressing the Human- Elephant Conflict incidents, within a time frame to be fixed by the Apex Court.

The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra held that the petitioner had alternate remedies at their disposal and accordingly dismissed the PIL. 

At the very outset, CJI DY Chandrachud remarked that there were multiple petitions such as the present one which were pending before the court. He said–

"There are enough such petitions pending and you can intervene in any of them. The High courts are looking into it."

However, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Maitreyi Hegde continued her arguments and said–

"Due to erroneous translocations, Tamil Nadu had to incur a cost of Rs 80 lakhs."

To this, CJI Chandrachud remarked–

"This is the problem...these are at the behest of someone especially concerned with translocation of Arikomban elephant. We are not inclined to interfere as there are alternate remedies available under law. Petitioner allowed to approach authorities or an appropriate judicial forum."     

In April, the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court direction for translocation of 'Arikomban'.                                                       

The petition argued that the "total failure" on the part of the State of Kerala in mitigating Human Elephant Conflicts induced by "the reckless and arbitrary decisions", in the Chinnakkanal area for two decades had violated many fundamental rights of the citizens. It stated that even after the translocation of Arikomban, human-elephant conflicts were being reported from the region which showed that it was not Arikomban who was responsible for the incidents and translocating him would not have much effect on the problem. It had submitted–

"...Elephants do not tend to stay in the very same place throughout the year as they are migratory species, they travel over long distances to fulfil their feeding and breeding requirements. When fragmentation happens, these landscapes become isolated and the herds are forced to confine to smaller areas. The ‘habitat islands’ will increase the risks of inbreeding, decrease in genetic diversity and reduce the overall metapopulation survival. In the present case also, where the HEC incidents are taking place is a traditional elephant corridor, and thus, is to be restored to reduce the HEC incidents and to preserve and protect the herd. The executive actions, so far, have miserably failed to do so and thus the fundamental rights of the citizens are violated."

The PIL had argued that the failure to maintain the traditional elephant corridors across the states and the decisions of translocation of the elephants violated the fundamental rights of the citizens in two ways. Firstly, it directly violated the fundamental rights of the citizens affected by the Human Elephant Conflicts incidents. Secondly, it indirectly violated the fundamental rights of the general public by contributing to an ecological imbalance resulting from the destruction of wildlife and the consequential environmental degradation.

Arguing that translocation should be used as a last resort, the petition contended–

"The translocations create a more hostile environment as the same is most likely to adversely affect the elephants physiologically. The aftermath of the translocation in the present case buttresses the studies. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Hon’ble Court to lay down that the said method to be used only in a ‘rarest of the rare cases’ as the same will violate the gamut of rights of several persons at one move."

Click Here To Read/Download Order