The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to prepare a comprehensive action plan to deal with the growing monkey menace across the state. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, while hearing two public interest litigations, expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of proactive measures from authorities despite acknowledging the seriousness of the issue.
The bench asked the state’s environment department to take into account a tentative plan produced by the Animal Welfare Board of India while preparing the action plan. The court also directed that the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, be made a party in the case.
The matter came up during the hearing of a PIL filed by social worker Vineet Sharma, along with a connected plea by a Ghaziabad resident. The court was informed by the Additional Advocate General that the National Board of Wildlife, in its Standing Committee meeting held on October 29, 2025, had made several recommendations. These included a direction to state governments to draft detailed, site-specific mitigation plans to identify and categorize conflict zones impacted by monkey intrusions.
However, the court found the state’s approach lacking. “While the problem is not disputed, willingness to tackle the problem is clearly absent as only a proposal has been given by the National Board of Wildlife,” the bench remarked.
Frustrated with the delay and lack of coordination among state departments, the court observed, “…despite all the respondents agreeing to the fact that the monkey menace does exist and is creating havoc in the lives of the general public, none of the respondents apparently is prepared to take the responsibility to control the said menace. Each department is seeking to shift the responsibility to another.”
It further noted that even though a meeting of concerned departments had been convened earlier, “therein also the responsibility was sought to be shifted on one another.”
Fixing February 27 as the next date of hearing, the court reiterated its direction to the authorities to comply with its repeated orders and submit a concrete action plan.
