Introduction:
In the case of Kulathoor Jaisingh v. State of Kerala and Ors. (WP(C) 32493/2019; 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 607), the Kerala High Court was called upon to address a serious public health issue arising from a tragic incident in 2019 when a school student lost her life due to a snakebite within the premises of her school. The writ petition filed by Kulathoor Jaisingh highlighted the lack of adequate preparedness in educational institutions across the State for dealing with snakebite incidents, as well as the absence of a structured government policy on snakebite management and healthcare facilities in schools. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen examined the matter in detail and ultimately delivered significant directions to the State government, aimed at institutionalizing preventive measures, emergency response mechanisms, and coordinated healthcare interventions for snakebite incidents in schools.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Kulathoor Jaisingh, strongly argued that the death of the student in 2019 exposed systemic gaps in the State’s public health and education infrastructure, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas where snakebite incidents are common. He submitted that schools in Kerala, despite being centers where children spend most of their time, lacked even the most basic facilities to handle such emergencies. He emphasized that snakebite continues to be a leading cause of accidental deaths in Kerala, especially in regions where snakes are abundant due to agricultural and semi-rural surroundings.
The petitioner argued that the failure of the State to devise a clear policy framework or issue binding guidelines for snakebite management amounted to a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that children, as vulnerable members of society, deserve special protection, and the government’s negligence in ensuring adequate healthcare responses amounted to a breach of its constitutional obligation. He drew attention to the absence of trained personnel in schools, lack of first-aid equipment, non-availability of anti-venom treatment nearby, and the slow response from hospitals in cases of emergency.
The petitioner urged the Court to issue directions to the State government to adopt a comprehensive set of guidelines that would not only provide for preventive measures but also ensure rapid emergency responses. He contended that schools alone cannot be held responsible for managing such incidents as snakebite is a medical emergency requiring professional healthcare intervention. Instead, he pressed for a coordinated action plan involving the health department, education department, and local administrative machinery to ensure accountability.
Arguments of the Respondents:
On behalf of the State government, the learned Advocate General submitted that the government was deeply concerned about the issue and had already initiated consultations at the highest levels to frame appropriate guidelines. He pointed out that a High-Level meeting was convened on September 1, 2025, wherein detailed discussions were held regarding preventive and emergency measures to be adopted in educational institutions. The Advocate General submitted that guidelines had already been framed as a result of this meeting, and the government was prepared to notify them formally within a stipulated period.
The State argued that while it was committed to ensuring safety and healthcare in schools, the responsibility for procuring, storing, and administering anti-venom serum could not be shifted to school managements. These were specialized tasks falling within the domain of the health department and hospitals. The government also stated that schools were already instructed to undertake basic preventive steps such as clearing the school compound, ensuring proper maintenance of classrooms and playgrounds, and arranging awareness programs for staff and students. However, the critical aspects of medical preparedness and availability of anti-venom required governmental intervention and inter-departmental coordination.
The State further assured the Court that it was considering the inclusion of snakebite as a notifiable disease under the Kerala Public Health Act in line with communications from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. This would help streamline reporting, monitoring, and treatment measures across the State. The Advocate General emphasized that a working group had already been constituted and was functioning, and the government was committed to strengthening this mechanism by bringing it under the supervision of the Chief Secretary and by including relevant stakeholders such as the Kerala State Legal Services Authority and NGOs working in the area of public health.
Court’s Judgment:
After carefully considering the submissions of both parties and reviewing the records placed before it, the Kerala High Court delivered a detailed judgment underscoring the importance of treating snakebite management as a public health priority. The Court began by acknowledging the tragic incident of 2019 and observed that such deaths cannot be allowed to recur due to the failure of the State to take proactive preventive measures. The Bench highlighted that children studying in schools are particularly vulnerable and must be given the highest degree of protection by both educational and health institutions.
The Court noted that the guidelines formulated at the High-Level meeting of September 1, 2025, were comprehensive in nature but required immediate notification and effective dissemination. Accordingly, the Court directed the State government to issue a formal circular within two weeks, notifying these guidelines. Importantly, the Court mandated that the circular should be published in both English and Malayalam on the government’s official website, along with email addresses to enable citizens and stakeholders to send their suggestions.
A key aspect of the judgment was the Court’s clarification regarding the scope of responsibility for schools. The Court emphatically held that schools cannot be burdened with tasks beyond their capacity, particularly those involving specialized healthcare interventions. For instance, ensuring the availability of anti-venom serum is a responsibility that falls squarely on the health department and not on educational institutions. Schools may only be tasked with preventive measures within their control, such as maintaining cleanliness, trimming overgrown vegetation, and conducting awareness drives.
The Court also directed that the working group constituted earlier should continue functioning as a Joint Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary until a permanent monitoring framework is put in place. This Committee will oversee compliance, review and update guidelines periodically, and devise a standard operating procedure (SOP) for monitoring and reporting. The Court specified that the Committee must meet at least twice a year and may collaborate with the Kerala State Legal Services Authority as well as NGOs working in the field.
Further, the Court directed the State to appoint nodal officers at both the State and district levels to collect data on snakebite incidents, treatment provided, and preventive measures undertaken. These officers will place their reports before the Joint Committee for review. The Bench also issued a strong directive to the government to expedite efforts in developing anti-venom vaccines, in coordination with relevant research and medical agencies.
In a forward-looking move, the Court ordered the State government to take steps within two months to include snakebite as a notifiable disease under the Kerala Public Health Act. The Court observed that such a move would align State policy with national directives and enable systematic reporting, treatment, and monitoring.
Finally, the Court disposed of the writ petition while making it clear that it will continue to monitor compliance through the Joint Committee until a permanent and effective framework is institutionalized. The Bench emphasized that the issue at hand involves not just one tragic incident but the broader responsibility of the State to protect children and ensure their right to health and life under Article 21 of the Constitution.