‘Human-elephant conflict a major challenge’; HC allows capture of 10-year-old wild elephant, its temporary translocation to Vantara in Gujarat

A petitioner opposing the “unsuitable” rehabilitation to Vantara argued that the elephant, born and raised in the forests of the Western Ghats in the Sahyadri range, had naturally migrated to Maharashtra from Karnataka.
The state government had said the elephant posed a grave threat to human life and property, and it had become necessary to shift it to Vantara in Gujarat’s Jamnagar, run by the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTWET), for training given its “immature age”.

A bench of Justices Makarand S Karnik and Ajit  B Kadethankar on November 12 passed an order on a PIL by Rohit Prakash Kamble, a lecturer at  Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological University, Lonere, challenging state’s decision to rehabilitate the elephant at Vantara.

The petitioner and the intervenor raised concerns over welfare and safety of the elephant and stated that wild elephants enter residential areas due to deforestation, encroachment, mining, and absence of green corridors. It claimed the proposed rehabilitation at Vantara was illegal and unconstitutional. They contended that captivity would destroy the elephant’s natural instincts and habits, and that Gujarat’s hot, dry climate and lack of native elephants make Vantara unsuitable and the impugned decision ignored these factors.

The Forest Department, represented by Advocate T J Kapre, argued that Vantara was the only facility willing to shelter, train, and rehabilitate Omkar. The government cited his aggressive behaviour, including killing a man in Dodamarg, Sindhudurg, in April this year, and said his erratic movements were caused by the absence of a mentor elephant, posing risks to both the animal and the public.

The HC observed in its order that “elephants play a crucial ecological role as keystone species, meaning their activities shape and sustain the environments they inhabit “and “their feeding, movement, and social behaviours have wide-reaching effects on the ecology of their habitat.”

Noting that elephants are classified as “endangered” in India, the bench observed that their “population in India is under constant pressure from habitat loss, fragmentation, and human–elephant conflict.” The court said, “It thus becomes crucial to protect the elephant species to ensure the sustenance and balance of the forest ecology.”

Justice Karnik, writing for bench, emphasised that “human-elephant conflict” remains “major conservation and livelihood challenge arising from the overlap between expanding human land use and elephant habitats.” The bench added,” As forests and grasslands are converted into farms and settlements, elephants often enter agricultural areas in search of food, leading to crop damage, property loss, often resulting in human casualties.”

“These conflicts have both ecological and socio-economic costs,” the court noted. “Small farmers face severe losses, wild animals are displaced or killed, reducing genetic diversity and habitat connectivity, which adversely affects vulnerable and endangered species,” the court said.

The court directed the state government to submit a proposal for the elephant’s temporary translocation and long-term relocation plan to the high-powered committee.

Posting further hearing to November 24, the bench directed the committee to examine the issue and recommend the “best course of action” for temporary release of the elephant in the wild or in captivity, preferably within two weeks of receiving the state’s proposal.