A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra specifically asked the Committee to hold meetings at a regular interval and “not remain on paper only”.

The Court passed this order while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by Vineet Sharma and another, seeking directions to address the Monkey menace prevalent in the state, control the human-macaque conflict, and secure better living conditions for the monkeys.

During the hearing on July 16, 2026, the State informed the High Court that pursuant to the Court's May 13 order, a duly constituted Committee has been formed, which will examine the proposed action plan to tackle the menace and suggest ways and means in this regard

The State further submitted that the Urban Local Bodies have been directed to continue their work of catching, transporting, and releasing monkeys from urban areas.

The bench was further apprised that the Wildlife Institute of India, which is preparing a long-term mitigation report, has also been contacted and asked to expedite their work and submit their observations as soon as possible and they have been instructed to provide a short-term strategy for handling the monkey menace.

The bench was specifically assured of the state's commitment to prepare a sustainable long-term plan for the monkey menace.

Taking note of these developments, the bench observed thus:

"In view of the above fact situation, wherein, apparently, a High Powered Committee has been constituted on 15 July 2026, it is expected that the Committee will look into the said aspect with urgency and take decision and appropriate steps for responding to the action plan suggested by the petitioners/propose an appropriate strategy for taking care of the monkey menace".

Background

The High Court has been monitoring this PIL since May 2025, repeatedly pulling up the State authorities for their lack of coordination and apathy.

In September 2025, the Court had criticized the administration, noting that despite all the respondents agreeing to the fact that the “monkey menace does exist and is creating havoc with the lives of the general public”, none of the respondents apparently is prepared to “take the responsibility to control the said menace”.

Each department is seeking to shift the responsibility to another, the bench had noted.

In December 2025, the State referred toa recommendation by the National Board of Wildlife (to include the Rhesus Macaque under Schedule II of the Wildlife Protection Act) as a reason for requiring extensive baseline studies.

The bench had rejected this stance as it noted that the proposal was being used to project a "sort of helplessness" and "utilized for the purpose of continuing with the inaction".

Subsequently, the State presented a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to the Court in April 2026.

However, the Counsel for the petitioners had pointed out several deficiencies in the said SOP, with the submission that the SOP only provides for a skeleton and all the limbs are missing.

However, the petitioners contested the SOP, pointing out severe deficiencies and arguing that it "only provides for skeleton and all the limbs are missing".

On May 13, the Court directed the state government to conduct an elaborate exercise to examine the action plan suggested by the petitioners through a duly constituted committee.

The government was further reminded that the state should not indulge only in denying whatever has been suggested by the petitioner, inasmuch as whatever has been indicated by the respondents in their SOP apparently does not address the vital requirements that would, in fact, address the menace.

After the formation of the 13-member committee, the High Court has now directed the State to place before the Court the progress and minutes of the committee's meetings on the next date of hearing.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 1, 2026