Bombay High Court Refuses To Direct State To Provide Compensation To All Snakebite Victims In Maharashtra, Says It Is For Govt To Consider

The Bombay High Court has refused to direct the state government to provide financial aid to all snake and scorpion bite victims in the state. observing that it is a policy decision, and such direction would encroach on the State Government’s jurisdiction.

A division bench of acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while disposing of a PIL, said:

“It is for the State Government to consider the grievances put-forth by the Petitioner with regard to providing the compensation to the other persons who succumb due to snake bite. This Court would not direct the Government to make a policy in a particular manner as that would amount to encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the State Government conferred the Article 162 of the Constitution of India”.

The PIL had prayed that the State be asked to grant financial aid to all victims of snake and scorpion bites residing in Maharashtra without discrimination.

Advocate Anurag Kulkarni for the petitioner submitted that the government gives financial aid to the victims of snake and scorpion bites under Gopinath Mundhe Insurance Scheme only to farmers and their one blood relative. Many victims of snakebites are not necessarily farmers, the court was told.

Persons like the petitioner who catch the snakes and scorpions and get bitten are not provided with any financial aid and this violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, it was submitted.

There is no reason for the state of Maharashtra not to extend the benefits given to farmers to everybody, Kulkarni added.

Government Pleader P. P. Kakade submitted that the Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department has taken a policy decision to compensate farmers and their family members against the risk of snake bite.

Granting financial aid is a matter of policy decision to be taken by the State government under Article 162 of the Constitution, the court said.

The court noted that the farmer and their family member form a different class and separate provision is made for them as they are on the field. The court added that the State has “under its wisdom” considered farmers to be different class and floated the scheme.

The court noted that compensation was already payable to farmers on account of death or injury caused by wild animals. The decision has been taken to extend the benefit for snake bites, the court noted.

Thus, the court refused to pass direction regarding the fiscal policies of the state.

“This Court would be slow to give directions with regard to the fiscal policies of the State Government. Whether a particular scheme is to be applied to a particular group of persons is a policy decision that is to be under taken by the Government,” the court stated.

Case no. – Public Interest Litigation No. 107 of 2022

Case Title – Vaibhav Padmakar Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 74