‘Each life lost, failure of governance’: Why Kerala High Court summoned top officials over man-animal conflict

Kerala High Court summons top officials over a tribal man’s death in Aralam, says every human-animal conflict fatality reflects administrative failure.

The guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of our Constitution cannot be rendered meaningless by persistent inaction on the part of the state administration, said the Kerala High Court.The guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of our Constitution cannot be rendered meaningless by persistent inaction on the part of the state administration, said the Kerala High Court. (Image generated using AI)

Coming down heavily on the state government over the death of a tribal resident in the Aralam region of Kannur district, the Kerala High Court has summoned top officials including the chief secretary observing that every loss of life in human-animal conflict is a failure of governance.

A bench of Justices Dr A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian was hearing a public interest litigation concerning recurring incidents of human-animal conflict in the Aralam Farm and the Tribal Rehabilitation and Development Mission (TRDM) area.

The steps taken by the state administration to be woefully inadequate to inspire confidence in the residents of the tribal colony, said the Kerala High Court. The steps taken by the state administration to be woefully inadequate to inspire confidence in the residents of the tribal colony, said the Kerala High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

“Every loss of human life, due to human animal conflict, represents a failure of the administrative machinery of the State, not to mention a failure to adhere to the constitutional morality expected of the State Executive, for which they must remain accountable,” the court said on February 27.

‘Woefully ignorant’ of ground reality

  • During the video conference proceedings, the director of the state SC/ST development department was present before the court.
  • In the video conference today, the director of the state SC/ST development department is present, and on interaction with him, we are convinced that the said person is woefully ignorant of the happenings in and around the TRDM area of the Aralam Farm.
  • Although we are told that persons were deputed to the scene of occurrence in the morning itself, we find the steps taken by the state administration to be woefully inadequate to inspire confidence in the residents of the tribal colony.
  • It observed that if such an incident could occur in an area where safety measures were already under judicial monitoring, the situation in other conflict-prone regions not under court scrutiny could be far worse.

Article 21, Constitutional morality

  • The guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of our Constitution cannot be rendered meaningless by persistent inaction on the part of the state administration.
  • If this is the fate of hapless tribal residents in the area when the adequacy of safety measures taken therein is being monitored by this court, one shudders to think about the fate of residents in other conflict areas in the State which are not currently under judicial surveillance.
  • The TRDM area at Aralam was conceived as a rehabilitation initiative, but repeated wildlife intrusions have turned daily life into a precarious existence for residents who depend on farming and forest-based livelihoods.

Top bureaucrats asked to answer

  • Expressing that it was adjourning the proceedings “with a heavy heart,” the bench directed the chief secretary of Kerala, the secretary of the SC/ST department, and the chief wildlife warden to be present via video conference at 2pm on March 2, 2026.
  • They have been asked to answer the court’s queries regarding the steps taken or proposed to prevent the recurrence of such incidents across the state.
  • The direction signals that the court is looking beyond immediate compensation or isolated remedial measures and is instead seeking systemic reforms ranging from stronger patrolling and early warning systems to coordinated action between the forest, tribal welfare and district administrations.

Death that triggered judicial anguish

  • The immediate backdrop to the court’s sharp observations was the death of 44-year-old one Aneesh A S, a resident of the Aralam TRDM area.
  • According to the order, Aneesh was attacked by a wild animal in the early hours of the day.
  • Messages were reportedly sent to the rapid response team to trace and contain the animal.
  • However, heavy mist in the area reduced visibility, preventing the night patrolling team of the Aralam Wildlife Range from locating it in time.
  • The rapid response team shifted Aneesh to the Peravoor Taluk Hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries.
  • Describing the state of affairs in and around Aralam Farm as “deplorable,” the bench made it clear that this was not an isolated mishap but symptomatic of deeper administrative lapses.

Larger crisis in Kerala’s conflict zones

  • Human-animal conflict has increasingly become a flashpoint in several parts of Kerala, especially in forest-adjacent settlements.
  • In Aralam, tribal families who were relocated with the promise of security and development now find themselves living at the edge of wildlife corridors.
  • The high court’s order reflects not just judicial disapproval but an insistence on accountability at the highest levels of governance.
  • By calling the loss of life an administrative failure, the bench has placed the burden squarely on the state machinery.
  • As the matter comes up again on March 2, all eyes will be on the assurances and concrete measures the state places before the court because, as the judges have made clear, the Constitution demands nothing less than the protection of life with dignity.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

 

Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments