In a contentious case centered on public safety and wildlife preservation, the Kerala High Court dismissed a plea challenging the government’s order to eliminate a tiger responsible for the recent death of a man in Wayanad district. The court’s decision reaffirmed the authority granted by the Wildlife Act to address situations where wild animals pose a threat to human life.
The legal battle ensued after a tiger fatally attacked a resident, Prajeesh from Vakeri, whose partially eaten body was discovered near a forest area in Wayanad on December 9. Subsequent investigations pointed to the tiger’s involvement in the tragic incident.
The Chief Wildlife Warden, in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Wildlife Act, issued an order mandating the possible shooting of the tiger if it couldn’t be captured or tranquilized. The directive emphasized adherence to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) guidelines, ensuring maximum efforts to either cage or tranquilize the animal before resorting to lethal measures.
However, a plea filed by the NGO Animals and Nature Ethics Community (ANEC) contested the order issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (WL) and Chief Wildlife Warden, seeking to challenge the decision to eliminate the tiger.
The Kerala High Court, presided over by Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun, dismissed the plea, remarking that it seemed more geared towards seeking publicity than serving the public interest. Consequently, the court imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the petitioner-organization.
The local populace, alongside members of both ruling and opposition factions, had vehemently protested, demanding immediate action against the tiger deemed responsible for the fatal attack. Their outcry intensified, branding the tiger as a “man-eater” and pressing authorities to eliminate the animal.
The order to potentially shoot the tiger, as permitted under section 11(1)(a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, reflected the gravity of the situation, acknowledging the threat posed by the animal to human life in the region.
While the court’s decision aligns with the provision allowing the Chief Wildlife Warden to authorize the hunting of specific wild animals posing a danger to human life, it underlines the complexity of balancing conservation efforts with safeguarding human safety in such critical scenarios.
Sources By Agencies