Introduction:

In a significant ruling addressing the escalating human-animal conflicts in Kerala, the High Court has taken proactive measures to find a lasting solution to the issue. The single-judge bench of Justice C.S. Dias, while hearing petitions related to wildlife attacks in various regions of Pathanamthitta district, directed the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) to conduct a comprehensive survey in human-animal conflict zones. The Court also emphasized the need to inform affected residents about compensation schemes available from both the Central and State governments. The case involved petitions seeking government intervention to prevent wildlife attacks and a plea for compensation to the legal heir of a victim who lost his life in a wild elephant attack in 2022. Highlighting the gravity of the situation, the Court noted that 555 people had lost their lives in Kerala due to such conflicts between 2019 and 2024. Expressing disappointment over the continued fatalities, the Court observed that despite the earlier directions in Joseph Tajet v. State of Kerala (2022), the measures to mitigate human-animal conflicts had not yielded the desired results. Suo motu, the Court impleaded several government authorities, including the Secretary to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Chief Secretary of the State, and the Member Secretary of KeLSA, to ensure effective implementation of mitigation strategies. It also appointed advocates M.P. Madhavankutty and Liji Vadakkedam as Amici Curiae to assist in the matter. The Court further sought a detailed report from the Chief Secretary on post-2022 mitigation measures and directed KeLSA to file its survey findings. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on March 24.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, representing the interests of residents from multiple villages affected by human-animal conflicts, presented a compelling case on the severe threat posed by wildlife intrusions into human settlements. They argued that the increasing incidents of fatal encounters with wild animals had resulted in an atmosphere of constant fear among those residing in high-range and forest-adjacent areas. The petitioners highlighted that despite multiple court orders and government assurances, effective preventive measures had not been taken, and human lives continued to be lost. They submitted that the government had failed to implement comprehensive protective mechanisms such as fencing, trenches, or wildlife corridors that could prevent animals from straying into human habitats. Additionally, they stressed that compensation schemes for victims’ families were inadequate, delayed, and riddled with bureaucratic hurdles. Citing the alarming statistic of 555 deaths over six years, they contended that human-animal conflicts should be declared a legally recognized disaster under the Disaster Management Act, ensuring structured relief and compensation mechanisms. The petitioners also demanded the establishment of a Special Forum or Tribunal dedicated to expediting compensation claims and ensuring justice for affected families. They urged the Court to intervene decisively to push the government into action, as previous commitments remained largely unfulfilled.

Arguments of the State Government:

The State government, while acknowledging the severity of human-animal conflicts, argued that it had been making efforts to mitigate the issue. It informed the Court that the Central and State governments had already allocated funds for compensation and had implemented various preventive measures such as elephant-proof trenches, solar fencing, and rapid response teams. The government maintained that the problem was complex and required a multi-pronged approach involving habitat conservation, controlled relocation of problematic wildlife, and public awareness programs. It also stated that the classification of human-animal conflict as a “State Specific Disaster” under the Disaster Management Act had enabled better financial support for victims’ families. However, the government admitted that the execution of some protective projects, such as the construction of protective walls funded under the Scheduled Tribe scheme, had faced administrative delays. It assured the Court that steps were being taken to accelerate such projects. Furthermore, the government argued that the complete prevention of wildlife intrusion into human settlements was nearly impossible due to the rapid urban expansion into forested areas, which had disrupted traditional animal migration patterns. It requested the Court to allow reasonable time for implementing the recommended measures, reiterating that conservation and human safety needed to be balanced.

Court’s Judgment:

Taking a firm stance, the Kerala High Court expressed deep concern over the rising fatalities resulting from human-animal conflicts and the lack of effective preventive measures. Justice C.S. Dias remarked that the fundamental rights of individuals living in high-range areas were being violated due to their constant fear of wildlife attacks. The Court emphasized that it could not remain passive in the face of such an alarming crisis and directed immediate action to be taken. It ordered KeLSA to coordinate with District and Taluk Legal Services Authorities to conduct a comprehensive survey of grievances from affected residents and inform them about the available compensation schemes. Highlighting the inadequacy of mere financial compensation, the Court stressed that the loss of human life demanded a long-term, sustainable solution. It also pointed out the government’s failure to implement prior directives issued in Joseph Tajet v. State of Kerala (2022), stating that the continued fatalities were shocking and unacceptable. The Court expressed disappointment that despite administrative sanction, critical projects like protective wall construction had not progressed. To ensure accountability, the Court suo motu impleaded the Secretary to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Chief Secretary of the State, and the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department as additional respondents. It also appointed advocates M.P. Madhavankutty and Liji Vadakkedam as Amici Curiae to assist in legal and policy deliberations. The Court directed the Chief Secretary to provide a comprehensive report detailing the mitigation measures undertaken by the State since the Joseph Tajet ruling and asked KeLSA to submit its survey findings. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on March 24, by which time the Court expects substantial updates on the government’s efforts to address human-animal conflicts.