Case Title: Rabecca Joseph …Petitioner
Vs.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Anrs …Respondents
Date of Decision: 16.06.2023
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Citation: W.P.(MD)No.13060 of 2023 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.11057, 11060, 11061 & 11063 of 2023
Introduction
For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed and a writ of mandamus be issued directing the 1st respondent to modify the site to which Arikomban be translocated mentioned in his order issued vide Proc.No.WL1/14072/2023 dated 27.05.2023 to the Tamil Nadu Forests bordering the Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala, a place where the elephant knows since his usual movement pattern and life revolved around Chinnakanal, Anayirangal Dam and Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala rather than being taken further away in unknown territory which is the known path of Arikomban.
Facts
The petitioner an animal rights activist is concerned about the welfare of a wild elephant named Arikomban, who was recently moved from the Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala to the Anayirangal Dam in Tamil Nadu. The activist argues that the move was not in Arikomban’s best interests, as the Anayirangal Dam is a relatively small area with limited food and water resources. Additionally, the area is frequented by humans, which increases the risk of Arikomban being injured or killed. The activist also argues that the move was unnecessary, as Arikomban has been living in the Mathikettan Shola National Park for many years and has shown no signs of aggression towards humans. The petitioner also sought for a relief to modify the circular issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests.
Issues
Was the translocation of Arikomban legal?
Were the Arikomban’s the best interests kept in mind while translocating?
Was the decision-making process transparent and inclusive?
What are the potential implications of the translocation of Arikomban for the future of elephant translocation in India?
Case analysis
The petitioner argues that the translocation of Arikomban to the Anayirangal Dam was illegal, as it violated his right to life and liberty. They also argue that the translocation was unnecessary, as Arikomban had not shown any signs of aggression towards humans.
The petitioner argues that the best interests of Arikomban would be served by being relocated to the Tamil Nadu Forests bordering the Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala. This is a place where he knows and is familiar with, and where there is more food and water available. The petitioner is concerned about the lack of transparency and public consultation in the decision-making process leading to the translocation of Arikomban. The petitioner is concerned that the translocation of Arikomban could set a precedent for the future of elephant translocation in India.
The petitioner sought for a relief to modify the circular issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests. The circular stated that the media was prohibited from publishing information about Arikomban without the prior permission of the Forest Department. The petitioner argued that the circular was too restrictive and that it prevented the public from being informed about Arikomban’s welfare.
The court has reviewed a status report filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests (respondent). The report states that the elephant, Arikomban, has been relocated to the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and is now adapting to the climate there. As a result, the question of releasing Arikomban in the Mathikettan Shola National Park is no longer relevant. The Forest Department has taken steps to monitor Arikomban’s movement and ensure his safety.
Judgement
The court has ruled that the writ petition is no longer necessary because Arikomban has been relocated to a new location and is now adapting to the climate there. The court has also stated that the petitioner can file a new writ petition if they wish to seek relief regarding the publication of information about Arikomban in the media.
Conclusion
The case has been concluded with the court ruling that the writ petition is no longer necessary. The elephant, Arikomban, has been relocated to the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and is now adapting to the climate there. The question of releasing Arikomban in the Mathikettan Shola National Park does not arise at all. The Forest Department has taken steps to monitor Arikomban’s movement and ensure his safety.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won Mathikettan Shola National Parka National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
