The Kerala High Court has affirmed that the state government is legally accountable for death, injury, or damage caused by wild animals, ruling that citizens are entitled to compensation as the state is the custodian and deemed owner of all wildlife.
Dismissing an appeal brought by the state forest department, the court ruled that failing to prevent wild animals from entering human habitations constitutes an infringement of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench noted that individuals can seek damages irrespective of whether their specific circumstances are covered under existing government schemes or statutory provisions.
The ruling, issued by Justice Mohammed Nias C P in an order dated August 21, upheld earlier judicial directives ordering authorities to compensate the dependents of a man killed by a wild elephant in Wayanad more than two decades ago.
Constitutional Duty And Custodianship
Rejecting the forest department’s contention that it could not be held responsible as a keeper of wild animals, the court stressed that the state holds a constitutionally mandated duty to protect the life and property of citizens alongside its obligation to conserve forests.
Justice Nias pointed out that authorities must take reasonable precautions to avert human-wildlife conflict, including installing trenches or boundary fencing to prevent animals from intruding into private farmland and residential zones. The court found that the fatal incident in Wayanad could have been averted had the forest department implemented proper safeguards, adding that the lack of direct control over free-roaming wildlife does not absolve the administration of liability.
Origins Of The Dispute
The legal battle stems from an attack on April 27, 2001, when a man was killed by a wild elephant while using the Chamappara panchayat road in Wayanad.
Following his death, the victim’s wife and children instituted a civil suit alleging fatal departmental negligence in restricting wildlife movement near populated areas. Although the government initially sanctioned Rs 20,000 in ex gratia relief, the family pursued additional damages through the courts, limiting their civil claim to Rs 1.80 lakh.
The forest department opposed the suit, alleging that the encounter took place on a forest route, that the deceased was intoxicated and negligent, and that the financial claim was unreasonable.
Prior Judicial Determinations Upheld
Both the trial court and the district court had earlier dismissed the department’s defenses, establishing that the fatal attack occurred on a local panchayat road adjoining residential dwellings rather than inside forest boundaries. The trial court determined total damages at Rs 1.98 lakh, ordering the state to pay the balance of Rs 1.78 lakh after accounting for the initial disbursement.
Affirming the trial court’s assessment, the High Court discarded arguments that the awarded payout was excessive. It observed that judicial bodies must guarantee fair, reasonable, and commensurate compensation that reflects the true magnitude of the loss, underscoring that human life cannot be devalued when determining damages.
