'Appalled By Insensitivity Towards Plight Of Animal' Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With Translocation Of Tusker ‘Arikkomban’

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with its earlier direction to translocate the wild tusker ‘Arikomban’ to Parambikulam Tiger Reserve despite the review petition filed by MLA K Babu citing apprehensions of residents near the proposed site of translocation about the elephant entering human settlements.

The court on 5th April had directed to tranquilise and translocate the elephant along with a radio collar to Parambikulam Tiger Reserve on the advice of an expert committee due to concerns raised by the residents of Anayirangal region about the elephant entering areas of human settlement and causing damage.

A division bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P while refusing to allow the review petition observed:

“We are also appalled by the total insensitivity demonstrated to the plight of the animal in question, which has been directed to be translocated from its original habitat to a new one only because there is every likelihood that the availability of plentiful natural food and water resources there would deter it from foraging in human settlements. The fact that the elephant will be radio-collared and its movements monitored by the forest/wildlife officials ought to have sufficed to allay the apprehensions of the petitioner, as the ‘surprise’ element of any conflict situation is effectively removed through the monitoring mechanism instituted and now in place.”

The review petition was filed by Nenmara MLA K. Babu, against the order of the Court directing the relocation of 'Arikomban' to Muthuvarachal/Orukomban within the limits of Parambikulam Tiger Reserve. The petition was field on behalf of the residents of Muthalamada Grama Panchayath which borders the Parambikulam Tiger Reserve. The apprehension of the petitioner was that since the elephant has been in the habit of entering human settlements in search of food, it would enter the residential areas of Muthalamada Grama Panchayath.

The court held that the apprehension of the petitioner was baseless and that there was no material on record to show that the elephant would enter the Muthalamada area and cause damage.

The court decided not to interfere with the translocation of ‘Arikkomban’ to Parambikulam. However, the court stated that if the State can find a suitable alternative to translocate the elephant within a week, it could shift the elephant to the new site under the directions of the order dated 05.04.2023. The court also directed the Forest and Wildlife Department to keep a round-the-clock vigil to safeguard the people of the locality where the elephant is currently located. However, if no alternate site is found within this period, the order dated 05.04.2023, must be complied with without delay, the court ordered.

“It concerns us that the arguments advanced before us in these proceedings fly in the face of the express provisions of our Constitution that oblige our citizens to exhibit compassion to animals. We might observe that it is not mere co-incidence that Art.51A of our constitution uses the expression ‘compassion’ and ‘humanism’ while enumerating the duties expected of the citizenry towards the environment and living creatures”

Future Steps

The court observed that reports of the State Forest and Wildlife department show that in many cases settlements were allowed to be built in areas where elephants live, despite clear evidence of elephant habitats. These reckless decisions by the government in the past has led to more conflicts between humans and elephants. The long term solution to this problem, the court said, might be to reverse some of these decisions and give back the elephants their habitats. However, restoring the natural habitats of affected animals will take time, it observed.

The Court stated that until the long-term issue is resolved, the State must take immediate steps to protect settlements near wildlife habitats. They should set up local task forces with officials from different departments and the local Panchayat President, who will work with the community to put in place protective measures to prevent animal attacks. This is the bare minimum the State can do to protect people's lives while also balancing animals rights, it stated.

“it is now fairly well settled that fundamental duties are as important as fundamental rights and that our courts will not look askance when it comes to their enforcement. When called upon to decide matters relating to the environment or ecology, our courts do keep in mind the provisions of Part IV and IV-A of the Constitution and issue directions based thereon, recognizing that the judicial wing is also an integral part of the ‘State’ that is charged with the protection and improvement of the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”

The Court also made special note of the recent order of the Supreme Court in Muruly M.S. v. State of Karnataka and Others which declared that the High Powered Committee, led by Justice Deepak Verma, has the authority to look into matters related to capturing and moving of wild animals, including elephants, across India. This would mean that the State government cannot take decisions about capturing and keeping animals without first getting approval from the High Powered Committee, the court warned.

“In the true spirit of humanism, and through invoking our feelings of empathy and compassion, what the constitution exhorts us to do is to develop a sympathetic understanding as a cognitive mode to decipher nature’s own language, to see organic life as it is, not as translated into manipulable objects for human use. It is only through a duty based legal approach that obligates human beings to invoke their feelings of sympathy, empathy and compassion while trying to understand those legitimate interests of animals that require safeguarding, that our nation can succeed in enhancing the inherent spirit of humanism in the citizenry.”

Case Title: K Babu V Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 186

Click here to read/download judgment