Wildlife attacks and compensation

A democratic government must adopt a humane approach that goes beyond the framework of laws. If a person is killed in a wild elephant attack and a court orders that two lakh rupees be paid as compensation to the family, paying it without putting forward counterarguments is the humane approach. There, humanity, not the law, must take precedence. However, officials entrusted to act and think only within the confines of existing rules will never be willing to do so. The clearest example of this is the appeals filed by the government and the Forest Department challenging the two lakh rupees compensation awarded by lower courts to the family of Scaria, who was killed in a wild elephant attack on a panchayat road in Chamappara, Wayanad, in 2001.

People do not vote to hand a government power merely to act on officials' reports as they are. The Constitution gives those in power the freedom and authority to reject or accept the recommendations of officials. Yet, the fact that those in power are often unwilling to do so has become one of the biggest shortcomings of our democratic system.
Instead of promptly granting two lakh rupees to the family of the person killed in the wild elephant attack, the government and the Forest Department decided to appeal against it in the High Court. Thus, the government managed to drag a case that should have ended in 2001 all the way to 2026.

However, High Court Judge C.P. Muhammed Niyas rejected this and ordered that the compensation be paid with interest. What did this achieve, other than forcing the government to pay many times the original two lakh rupees as compensation with interest, while also incurring a similar amount in the cost of litigating the case? The High Court has ruled that the government bears full responsibility for providing compensation to those who fall victim to wildlife attacks. The High Court has also made it clear in its order that the government is regarded as the owner of wild animals and bears full responsibility for the damage they cause. To deny compensation, the Forest Department argued that the elephant attack had occurred while the victim was walking through the forest.

It was also argued that, under the rules of 1980, only Rs 20,000 could be paid as compensation to victims of wild animal attacks. However, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the attack had occurred not in the forest but on a panchayat road. The court's observation that the value of human life cannot be confined to paltry sums should serve as a lesson to the government in similar cases. It is also commendable that the court's order specifically stated that the government must take the necessary precautions to prevent wild animals from entering human settlements and agricultural lands, that people can demand compensation if there is a lapse in this regard, and that the government remains liable to pay compensation even if there has been no lapse on its part.