'Balance Of Convenience Lies Against Immediate Capture Of Arikomban': Kerala High Court Constitutes Expert Committee

The Kerala High Court was of the firm view that under the present circumstances, the balance of convenience would lie against the immediate capture of the wild tusker ‘Arikomban’, a rogue elephant which is causing disturbances in human settlements near Munnar.Taking note of the 'deplorable state' of captive elephants, as well as various instances of cruelty meted out to them, the Court wondered whether the pachyderm should be consigned to a life in captivity. "Adding another wild elephant to that list of hapless ‘converts’ would run counter to our fundamental duty to protect wildlife and have compassion for living creatures, as envisaged under Art.51A (g) of our Constitution," the Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. observed. The elephant had allegedly been foraging into the Chinnakanal area, and causing damage to the property in the human settlement areas. Vide its order dated March 25, 2023, the Court had directed the Forest and Wildlife Department to refrain from capturing the tusker. While taking note of the concerns raised by the residents of the Chinnakanal and Santhampara localities, the Court observed that the same would have to be balanced with that of the interests of the elephant in question, in order to arrive at a lasting solution to the problem posed by the animal. "Today it is Arikomban, tomorrow it will be some other elephant. As long as settlements are coming near forest areas, we need to think of a solution," the Court orally observed during the hearing today. In this regard, the Court added that it would have to examine the circumstances under which the settlers came to be rehabilitated in areas that the Court was told, had been recognized as 'elephant corridors' at the time of their rehabilitation. "If it’s a resettlement that has taken place into an area that was admittedly an elephant habitat, your policy makers went way off board. We will look into that and if we find that it was done ignoring scientific reports to the contrary, we will have no difficulty in bringing them to task. Let the reports come. If resettlement was in elephant habitat, that is a gross negligence of policy makers," the Court came down heavily upon the State during the oral hearings today. It thus went on to note in its order that an animal could not be punished for its aggression solely based on the layman's perceptions as to the threat that might be posed by it. It noted that the interests of the people would not be served simply by targeted intervention against one elephant alone, when a herd of elephants had been foraging in the area. "To punish an animal for its aggression based solely on a layman’s perception of its motives, and nothing more, would not amount to rendering justice to the animal in any sense of the term. On the contrary, the State would be in breach of its constitutional duty to protect its wildlife. The interests of the people in the locality also will not be safeguarded through targeted and irreversible action against just one elephant when a herd of elephants is stated to be foraging in the area," the Court reminded. Constitution of Expert Committee The Court had enquired today as to the steps taken for the protection of people in the locality and the forces deployed for the same. It was informed by the State government that Forest and Wildlife Department personnel had been deployed to keep vigil in the areas where the elephant is known to frequent, assisted by kumki elephants. The Court also noted that the kumki elephants had in fact, shown themselves to be more dominant than Arikomban, because of which the elephant could be prevented from encroaching in the human settlements. The Court also took note of the submissions made by the officers of the forest department (The Chief Conservator of Forests (High Range Circle) and the Veterinary specialist) that the animal had not caused any damage to human life in the recent past, although there had been several instances of property damage. The Court thus observed that ordering for capture of Arikomban at this stage would prove to be dangerous for both the Forest Department personnel that had been deployed, as well as the animal concerned. It took note that the animal that was currently in ‘musth’ was moving in the company of its herd comprising females and calves. It is in this regard that the Court found it appropriate at this stage to direct the constitution of a five member Committee of Experts (CoE) to advise it on matters pertaining to Human-Elephant conflict situations arising in the State. It noted that such a Committee was necessary in order to explore other options for preventing the animal from straying into human settlements, and to avoid taking any 'quick-fix knee-jerk actions' in this regard. The CoE comprising Arun R.S., the Chief Conservator of Forests (High Range ...

'Balance Of Convenience Lies Against Immediate Capture Of Arikomban': Kerala High Court Constitutes Expert Committee

Navya Benny

Tags