PIL against move to capture rogue tusker: Kerala HC seeks govt’s views

Kochi: High court on Monday sought instructions from state govt in a PIL seeking a directive to forest officials to refrain from capturing elephant TT1, also known as ‘Mutti Komban', from the Wayanad forest. The tusker is said to be involved repeated raids on crops and also the death of a farmer on March 3.A bench of Justices V Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jayakumar issued the directive in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Sama Srishti Federation of Animal Rights Organisations of Kerala, Thrissur. HC also sought instructions from the Animal Welfare Board of India in the petition and adjourned the matter to April 1.Mutti Komban has reportedly entered farmlands and plantations repeatedly, raided crops, and caused fear among local residents of Vadakkanad in Wayanad district. The immediate trigger for the move to capture the elephant was the death of a farmer on March 3. With efforts to keep the jumbo away from human habitations failing, forest officials have now set up a kraal at Muthanga to capture Mutti Komban.The petitioner says that there is no material to substantiate the claim that Mutti Komban was responsible for the farmer's death. Further, they contended that, as an elephant is a Schedule I animal, two 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 law.Counsel for the petitioner additionally argued that the standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by forest department for dealing with wild animals straying into human-dominated landscapes has not been followed in this case. According to the procedure, when an elephant poses a threat to human life, the protocol is to tranquillise and immobilise it for the limited purpose of fitting a radio collar. This enables forest personnel to track and monitor its movements.They further alleged that, in the case of Mutti Komban, what is being carried out is effectively a hunt and capture for captivity, which is not contemplated under the law.