HC raps State after tribal resident killed by wild elephant in Aralam; Chief Secretary, top officials summoned

The Kerala High Court on Friday strongly criticised the State administration over the death of a tribal resident in a wild elephant attack at Aralam farm here, terming the situation in the area “deplorable” and pointed to serious administrative lapses.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a writ petition filed by Baiju Paul Mathews of Sulthan Bathery, seeking interim directions for restoration and maintenance of electric fencing in critical blocks of Aralam farm, deployment of round-the clock-watchers or rapid response squads, trimming of vegetation to improve visibility, timely repair of damaged boundary walls, temporary relocation of vulnerable families if necessary, and immediate elephant drive operations pending a comprehensive translocation plan.

During the proceedings, the court was informed that A.S Aneesh of the Aralam Tribal Rehabilitation and Development Mission (TRDM) area was injured in an elephant attack and later succumbed to his injuries at the Peravoor taluk hospital on Friday. The court noted that although messages were reportedly sent to the Rapid Response Team (RRT) to locate the animal, the night patrolling team of the Aralam Wildlife Range failed to trace it due to heavy mist and poor visibility. The RRT could only transport the injured man to the hospital.

Observing that the incident exposed “clear lapses” in ensuring adequate safety measures for tribal residents in the Aralam farm and TRDM areas, the Bench in its order expressed dissatisfaction with the steps taken by the State machinery. During a video conference, the Director of the State SC/ST Development department appeared before the court. The Bench recorded that he seemed “woefully ignorant” about the ground situation in and around the TRDM area.

The judges remarked that “if this was the condition in an area under judicial monitoring, the fate of residents in other human-animal conflict zones without such oversight was worrying.” The Bench underscored that the guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be reduced to a mere formality by administrative inaction.

Every loss of life in human-animal conflict, the court observed, reflected a failure of the State’s administrative machinery and a lapse in constitutional responsibility.

The court directed the Chief Secretary, the Secretary of the SC/ST department and the Chief Wildlife Warden to appear through video conference on the next date and explain the steps taken or proposed to prevent similar incidents across the State. The matter has been adjourned to March 2, 2026.