No plan to keep rogue Wayanad tusker in captivity, forest dept tells Kerala HC

Kochi: State forest department has informed high court that there is no plan to capture the elephant TT1, also known as ‘Muttikomban', from the Wayanad forest, and that the intention is only to translocate it away from human habitation after fitting it with a radio collar.The special govt pleader for forest department made these submissions in response to a PIL filed by the Sama Srishti Federation of Animal Rights Organisations of Kerala, Thrissur, seeking a directive to forest officials to refrain from capturing the elephant.Meanwhile, the bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jayakumar pointed out that the press release issued by the deputy conservator and wildlife warden had given rise to some confusion regarding the operation intended by the forest officials. It was also noted that the press release made no reference to fitting a radio collar on the elephant. Instead, it mentioned only its capture. Subsequently, the division bench directed forest department to file a counter affidavit on or before April 6, clarifying the procedure proposed to be followed, and adjourned the petition to April 7.During hearing, the special govt pleader submitted that forest officials had decided to adopt the same procedure used in the case of the elephant ‘Arikomban', which was translocated from Chinnakanal in Munnar to Tamil Nadu. He further stated that the translocation would be subject to the elephant's medical condition after it is tranquilised and captured. He also pointed out that there remains a possibility, up to 10%, that ‘Muttikomban' may have to be kept in captivity if its medical condition does not permit relocation.‘Muttikomban' has reportedly entered farmlands and plantations repeatedly, raided crops, and caused fear among residents of Vadakkanad in Wayanad district. The immediate trigger for the move to capture the elephant was an incident involving the death of a farmer on March 3. As repeated attempts by forest officials failed, they have now set up a kraal at Muthanga to capture the elephant, prompting the petitioners to approach HC.The petitioners have primarily challenged the decision to capture the elephant, alleging that there is no material to substantiate the claim that ‘Muttikomban' was responsible for the farmer's death. They further contended that, as an elephant is a Schedule I animal, two separate written orders from the chief wildlife warden are required for it to be kept in captivity — one permitting the hunt and the other authorising captivity. In the present case, they argued, a consolidated order has been passed, which is not in accordance with the law.