'How Can Criminal Liability Be Attributed?': Kerala High Court Asks In Plea Against Forest Officials Over Sloth Bear's Death In Well

The Walking Eye Foundation for Animal Advocacy has filed a plea before the Kerala High Court seeking to fix responsibility and initiate administrative action against the Forest department officials and Veterinarian over death of a sloth bear which had fallen into a well on April 20, 2023. The plea accused the officials of not taking proper action in the matter.

The incident relates to a Sloth Bear falling into a well on a private land in Vellanadu Grama Panchayat, on the wee hours of April 20, 2023, which had attracted significant media attention.

When the matter was taken up by the Division Bench comprising Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran today, the Court questioned whether every lapse on the part of officials would entail criminal responsibility. 

"At this stage, we can all say it was a mistake. At that moment, how do you attribute a criminal liability to this? Merely because the ideal situation did not happen, when the officials took measures in good faith to save the bear as well as the people,  and not to create panic or terror amongst the people, how do you say that (there is an offence)?" the Court asked. 

The Court added that there was a 'slight distinction' between negligence and intention to kill, and proceeded to ask whether every instance of negligence could amount to a criminal offence. 

The petitioner alleged that while the police officials had arrived at the spot on intimation of the incident at around 1.30 AM, the Forest Officials who had to carry out the rescue operations only arrived several hours later. 

The petitioner averred that as per Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act, the sanction of the Chief Wildlife Warden is necessary for injecting immobilization medicine. However, the petitioner claimed that the District Forest Officer (5th respondent) had ordered the Veterinarian (7th respondent) to immobilize the animal without obtaining such sanction. 

The petitioner also averred that before darting the animal, it had to be taken into a net with the help of the Fire Force, and the water in the well also had to be drained, which aspects were not adhered to by the Forest Official or the Veterinarian before darting the Sloth Bear. It has been alleged that the Fire Force was only informed about the matter after the animal had drowned. 

The petitioner thus averred that this unscientific action of the Chief Wildlife Warden, the District Forest Officer, the Range Forest Officer, and the Veterinarian had led to the death of the Sloth Bear which is a venerable animal. It was averred that the death of the animal would thus have to be compensated by the officials responsible for the same. It has also been submitted that the District Police Chief had not registered a crime against the officials responsible for the loss of life of the animal. 

At this juncture, the Court noted that Section 11 of the Act referred to 'hunting'. 

"This is not hunting, there is no hunting here. The bear was not hunted. Here, no question of any intention to kill, bear was only attempted to be tranquilized. So question of permission from Chief Wildlife Warden is also not required, since there was no order to kill here," the Court observed. 

Regarding the apprehension by the petitioner that the record might be manipulated, the Court observed that the same was a 'wild apprehension' as there was no intention to kill the animal in this case. "Unfortunately, the animal died," the Court noted. 

The plea has been filed seeking the following reliefs: 

i. For the production of records by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests relating to the death of the Sloth Bear;

ii. For the fixation of responsibility on the forest officials for their alleged lapse in rescuing the bear;

iii. For issuance of direction to the District Police Chief to take cognizance on the respondent Forest officials by invoking the provisions of IPC;

iv. For issuance of direction to the State Government to recover the loss sustained by the State due to death of the animal and credit the amount to Government accounts;

v. For submission of the detailed post mortem report of the Sloth Bear; and

vi. For initiation of appropriate action against the respondent Forest officials and veterinarian by the Principal Secretary of Forest as per law. 

The Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. The matter has been posted for further consideration on May 24, 2023. 

Case Title: Walking Eye Foundation for Animal Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors.