The Bombay High Court has called for an explanation from Maharashtra district and forest officials following their failure to provide protected transportation for 228 children traveling through wildlife-prone areas of the Sahyadri Tiger Reserve region to attend school.
A division bench consisting of Justices Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Neeraj P. Dhote at the Kolhapur Circuit Bench gave the district collector and forest department one week to explain their non-compliance with a previous court order. Characterizing the government’s inaction as appalling, the bench warned that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation would result in serious judicial consequences.
Dangerous Daily Commute for Village Students
The matter arose during the hearing of a public interest litigation alongside an interim application and a contempt petition filed by Harish Bhimrao Kamble. An additional affidavit submitted to the court revealed that 228 students across eight villages travel to five schools while continuously exposed to potential wildlife attacks.
The filings highlighted extreme conditions endured by students, including a sixth-grade child who walks up to 30 kilometers and spends four hours daily on foot because no public or school transport services exist in the area.
Unimplemented Judicial Directives
The High Court had previously issued an interim order on April 2 directing the district collector and the forest department to identify high-risk schools within seven days. That directive required joint action to deploy safe transport for children, escorted by a dedicated Rapid Response Team.
During the hearing, the court observed that neither the local administration nor the forest authorities had implemented the directive or submitted affidavits demonstrating compliance over the past four months. The bench noted that the authorities had disregarded the welfare and physical safety of young students traveling long distances.
Legal Obligations and Requested Relief
The petitioner argued that securing safe passage to educational facilities is a statutory duty under Rule 6 of the Right to Education Rules. Citing Section 38V of the Wildlife Protection Act and Article 21 of the Constitution, the petition emphasized the state’s responsibility to protect citizens from animal attacks while conserving wildlife.
Specific measures requested in the petition include permanently positioning a Rapid Response Team near identified high-risk schools between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily. The petitioner also requested the permanent deployment of an advanced life support ambulance at the Shittur-Warun primary health center.
The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for August 25 to evaluate the affidavits submitted by the district collector and forest department.
