M/S Federation of Indian Animals Protection Organisations (Fiapo) Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S FEDERATION OF INDIAN ANIMALS PROTECTION ORGANISATIONS (FIAPO) REGISTERED TRUST U/D INDIAN TRUST ACT ANIMAL PROTECTION ORGANISATION HAVING OFFICE AT A 86, EAST OF KAILASH NEW DELHI, DELHI - 110 065 AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MS. BHARATI RAMACHANDRAN

¶13

(BY SRI. ALWYN SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND :

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY ROOM NO. 323A , 3^rd FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

PCCF (WILDLIFE) AND CHIEF WHILDLIFE WARDEN KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT ARANYA BHAVAN MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 004

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶20

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER HASSAN CHIEF CONSSERVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAVAN NEAR DIARY CIRCLE

¶21

B M ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201

¶22

RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2265 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REFRAIN FROM CAPTURING ANY WILD ELEPHANTS FROM HASSAN DISTRICT, THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SCOPE OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA

¶27

and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶28

CAV JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶30

The present petition was grouped with Writ Petition

¶31

No.16219 of 2024, which was suo motu proceedings. The said suo

¶32

motu writ petition along with third cognate Writ Petition No.14166 of

¶33

2023 is disposed of as per the judgment pronounced today.

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶36

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Alwyn Sebastian for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate

¶37

Smt. Niloufer Akbar for the respondents.

¶38

This petition is filed as public interest petition by the animal protection organization named M/s. Federation of Indian Animals Protection Organisations.

¶39

2.1 The prayer made herein was to direct the respondentsauthorities to refrain from capturing any wild elephant from Hassan District. It was case that such action would be inconsistent with the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife)-respondent No.2.

¶40

2.2 The said order reads as under,

¶41

"In view of the factors outlined in the proposal, application of section 11 (1) (a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 to specifically identify, capture, radio-collar and re-release 09 solitary male Elephants in the range of Sakaleshpur, Alur, Arakalagudu, Belur and Yasalur zones of Hassan Division. Permission granted. It has been ordered to strictly follow the directives and Standard Operation Procedure issued by the Government of India / State Government from time to time, and take precautionary measures so as not to violate the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in the capture operation."

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶44

2.3 The order was passed in light of the facts revealed that the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Hassan Division intimated about radio collaring of nine single male elephants in the area of Sakaleshpura, Alur, Arakalagudu, Belur and Yasalur Zones of Hassan Division. These elephants had been causing destruction to the crops, injuring human and had been damaging the public property creating menace. It was proposed that the radio collar should be applied to them to map and monitor their movements.

¶45

It appears that the petition was filed in view of incident of death of one Arjuna-an elephant, who died during elephant capturing operation in the Yelur range of forest which was reported in the newspaper 'The Hindu' dated 21.12.2023 under the title "Arjuna's death: Probe team reaches Hassan, gathers information". The elephant which had strayed into the agricultural field was electrocuted on the field in the Hediyala range of the Bandipur Tiger Reserve. In addition to this, another incident is of death of camp elephant in Nagarhole was reported, because of the veterinarian doctor applied multiple tranquilliser shots. The elephant had fell into pit to succumb to death.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶47

3.1 The pleadings in the petition also referred to the aspect that as many as 148 human lives were lost during the past five years as per the news report in "Bangalore Mirror" dated 06.09.2023 about the human-elephant conflict leading to the deaths. The petitioner felt concerned by the developments relating to capture and death by electrocution of the elephants. The petitioner showed its anxiety for protecting wildlife and in particular, elephants from hunting, by capturing them or keeping them in captivity or applying other forms of exploitation on them.

¶48

It was contended that despite the grave situation, order dated 22.06.2023 passed by respondent No.2 which took note of nine wildlife elephants causing menace to the life and property in the area, the authorities had not provided for capture and collaring and that this inaction was indicative of non-application of mind. Referring to Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 which permits hunting of wildlife animals in certain cases, it was contended that the power exercisable under the said provision is exceptional in nature and is available only against single wildlife animal and not several animals at a time.

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶51

4.1 It was contended that there has to be checks and balances

¶52

while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act and that this power should be regulated. It was the power is misused while passing the said order of radio collaring for nine elephants at a time by single order without providing any reasons or documentary support.

¶53

4.1.1 It was contended that the foresters randomly take elephants

¶54

into captivity and thereafter they are not released by radio collaring them. The instances were cited that a young elephant fell deep and died when tranquillising attempt failed. It was stated that female elephant also died in similar circumstances by sustaining fractures. There are several incidents which took place resulting into death of the elephants during botched capture missions, it was contended.

¶55

4.2 The respondent-State filed its reply. It was stated that the Hassan region faces severe crisis in respect of human-elephant conflict. Cases of crop depredation, property damage, human injury, human death, etc. have resulted. In the Hassan district, the elephants stay less in the forest but move outside the forest area. At any moment, sixty-seventy elephants remain in coffee estates

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶57

and in the fields. Many elephants are generally in herd led by matriarchs with group of twenty-twenty five including calves.

¶58

4.2.1 It was stated that the Department of Forests resorts to the capturing of elephants only in a rare and compelling cases where the situation becomes unavoidable. The elephants often damage the standing crops and inflict injuries to humans and at time cause the deaths. The figures of human death caused by rouge elephants during the years 2010-11 to 2024-25 were stated by annexing a tabular statement. It was stated that the department in order to mitigate the human-elephant conflict had taken several measures and the authorities have issued the directions.

¶59

4.3 It was stated about the measures taken in Hassan district in particular. The Forest Department has employed exclusive workforce of more than 120 dedicated staff namely, AntiDepredation Camps Watchers, Rapid Response Teams and formed Elephant Task Forces, who continuously monitor the elephants and conduct driving operations, as and when needed. It was further stated that the department has also taken measures like creating railway barricades, elephant proof trenches, solar tentacle fencings, etc. in the entire state including in the Hassan

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶61

District. Crop losses are ascertained by field officers and compensation is paid.

¶62

4.4 In addition to all of the above measures, department also taken measures to identify errant elephants, who need to be translocated. The herd leaders are also identified, who need to be monitored through radio collars. it was stated. The respondentState mentioned that capturing the elephants is done with due care and by ascertaining the health status of the animal as assessed by the veterinary doctors. The elephants are thereafter sent to department camps or are released to the forest.

¶63

4.5 The details of the barricades erected as on 31.05.2024 are given in the reply. The rail barricades are erected to the extent of 313 kms. The solar fencing is done extending 632 kms. and elephant proof trenches of 1040 kms., thereby, in total area of 1985 kms. protection to the animals is provided. It was submitted that compared to the total population of the elephants, very few numbers are required to be captured or hunted. The capturing has to be resorted to when the elephants are found to be intruding the residential areas and agricultural fields to endanger the life and property. It was submitted that the power vested under Section 11

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶66

of the Act is judicially exercised in all cases. Only in selective cases of the kind of compelling necessity, the capture permissions are granted.

¶67

4.6 The respondents have highlighted about the measures such as creation of elephant conservation zone, elephant-human co-existence zone, elephant removal zone, etc. The recommendations of the wildlife expert organization and bodies are implemented and the guidelines are followed.

¶68

4.7 The court has taken note of measures taken by the authorities to protect the elephants.

¶69

Section 11 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 permits hunting of wild animals in certain cases. It is extracted hereunder,

¶70

" 11. Hunting of wild animals to be permitted in certain cases: -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV:-

¶71

(a) the Chief Wild Life Warden may, if he is satisfied that any wild animal specified in Schedule I has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing and stating the reasons therefor, permit any person to hunt such animal or cause such animal to be hunted:

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶73

Provided that no wild animal shall be ordered to be killed unless the Chief Wild Life Warden is satisfied that such animal cannot be captured, tranquilised or translocated:

¶74

Provided further that no such captured animal shall be kept in captivity unless the Chief Wild Life Warden is satisfied that such animal cannot be rehabilitated in the wild and the reasons for the same are recorded in writing.

¶75

Explanation:- For the purposes of clause (a), the process of capture or translocation, as the case may be, of such animal shall be made in such manner as to cause minimum trauma to the said animal.

¶76

(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer may, if he is satisfied that any wild animal specified in Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV has become dangerous to human life or to property (including standing crops on any land) or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing and stating the reasons therefor, permit any person to hunt [such animal or group of animals in a specified area or cause such animal or group of animals in that specified area to be hunted].

¶77

(2) The killing or wounding in good faith of any wild animal in defence of oneself or of any other person shall not be an offence:

¶78

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall exonerate any person who, when such defence becomes necessary, was committing any act in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder.

¶79

(3) Any wild animal killed or wounded in defence of any person shall be Government property."

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶81

5.1 The power conferred on the forest authorities under the above provision, often come under the scanner for its indiscriminate use or misuse, which cost the animals their freedom and liberties and that they are captured and kept in captivity, causing harassment to them.

¶82

5.2 The human-elephant conflict management is a delicate task wherein on one hand the wildlife is to be conserved and on the other hand, it is to be ensured that the residential areas are not intruded by the wandering elephants who travel out of their forest habitat to travel to human populated colonies to damage the crops and to pose threat to human life also.

¶83

The directions given in suo motu Writ Petition No.16219 of 2024 shall be part of this order. In addition, it is provided that the respondent-forest authorities shall invoke powers under Section 11 of the Wildlife Protection Act, only in appropriate cases and shall use the power in reasonable and in non-arbitrary manner.

¶84

6.1 If no guidelines are framed for exercise of the powers, respondent No.1 through its competent authority shall see that such guidelines are prepared and implemented to avoid the misuse

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:17432-DB WP No. 2406 of 2024

¶87

of the statutory provision for capturing the elephants and keeping them in captivity. The exercise of powers shall be in such manner to maintain equilibrium and ensure that the delicate balance does not get disturb in human-elephant conflict to protect the well- being of the both.

¶88

With above observations, the present petition is disposed of.

¶89

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶90

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶91

AHB

M/S Federation of Indian Animals Protection Organisations (Fiapo) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Federation of Indian Animals Protection Organisations (Fiapo) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri H T Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

V Devaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

High Court Legal Services Committee Vs Principal Secretary, Govt of Karnataka

M/S People for Animals Mysuru Vs State of Karnataka

High Court of Karnataka Vs the Union of India

Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences University (Kvafsu) Vs State of Karnataka