The provocative observation delivered at the landmark two-day regional conference organized by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) in Thiruvananthapuram underscores a critical reality facing India today. With 555 human lives lost in Kerala alone between 2019-2024 due to human-wildlife conflicts, and nearly 500 deaths in the past five years, the legal framework governing this crisis demands urgent examination and reform. The conference has brought together Supreme Court judges, High Court justices, and legal experts to address the growing challenges of human-wildlife conflict through comprehensive legal and policy perspectives, while launching groundbreaking schemes to provide justice and support for victims.
Background: The Constitutional and Legal Framework
Article 21 and Environmental Protection
The Indian Constitution’s Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. In landmark cases such as Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP (the Dehradun quarrying case), the Supreme Court held that the right to wholesome environment forms part of the right to life under Article 21. This constitutional foundation becomes crucial in human-wildlife conflict scenarios, as Justice Surya Kant emphasized at the conference: “Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, must also protect the necessary environmental conditions for this life.”
Logo of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) symbolizing access to justice for all in India
The Supreme Court has consistently held that any disturbance to basic environmental elements – air, water, and soil – necessary for life would be hazardous to life within the meaning of Article 21. This interpretation creates a constitutional obligation to balance human rights with environmental protection, directly impacting how human-wildlife conflicts are legally addressed.
Article 48A: State’s Duty to Protect Wildlife
Article 48A, added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, mandates that “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.” This provision, though classified as a Directive Principle of State Policy and not directly enforceable, becomes enforceable under Article 21. As observed by Justice Vikram Nath at the conference, “Our festivals, folklore, and rituals reflect the interconnectedness between humans and wildlife. We need a unified framework that integrates forest, wildlife, and disaster management policies.”
The Supreme Court has clarified that whenever ecological issues are brought before courts, Article 48A and 51A(g) must be considered, and courts cannot leave matters entirely to government discretion. This judicial activism has elevated environmental protection to near-fundamental rights status.
What the Law Says: Current Legal Framework
Wildlife Protection Act 1972: Powers and Limitations
The Wildlife Protection Act 1972 provides the primary legal framework for managing human-wildlife conflicts in India. Section 11 of the Act empowers the Chief Wildlife Warden to manage human-wildlife conflict situations involving Schedule I species, and authorizes killing of dangerous animals under specific circumstances.
However, Kerala’s Law Minister P. Rajeeve highlighted critical limitations at the conference: “The existing legal system is not sufficient to protect human lives and the provisions in the Wildlife Protection Act limit the chief wildlife warden’s ability to make quick decisions in critical situations.” The procedural complexities for obtaining permission to eliminate threatening animals are “complicated and time-consuming,” particularly affecting marginalized communities and tribal populations.
An elephant behind a wire fence in Kerala’s forest area, illustrating human-wildlife conflict
The Kerala Legislative Assembly has unanimously passed a resolution demanding amendments to shift authority from the Chief Wildlife Warden to the Chief Conservator of Forests, clearly define animal categories that pose threats to human life, and empower state governments to declare “control zones” based on scientific studies.
State-Specific Disaster Declaration: A Legal Paradigm Shift
Kerala’s declaration of human-wildlife conflict as a “state-specific disaster” under Government Order GO(MS) No. 4/2024/DMD dated March 7, 2024, represents a significant legal innovation. This designation shifts responsibility from the forest department operating under Wildlife Protection Act constraints to the state disaster management authority powered by the Disaster Management Act.
Under this framework, district collectors can directly intervene as chairpersons of district disaster management authorities, with enhanced powers to override wildlife laws during declared disaster periods. Section 71 of the Disaster Management Act limits judicial interference, while Section 72 provides overriding effect over other laws during disaster periods.
What the Conference Changes: New Legal Initiatives
NALSA Scheme on Access to Justice for Human-Wildlife Conflict Victims, 2025
The conference marked the launch of NALSA’s pioneering scheme providing free legal aid, awareness, and timely assistance to human-wildlife conflict victims. Justice Surya Kant announced this initiative as opening “a new chapter in our commitment to justice,” emphasizing that “justice cannot be permitted to operate selectively, neither in its substance nor in its application.”
Logo of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) highlighting access to justice for all in India
The scheme provides clear guidelines for legal aid delivery, employs data-driven approaches to strengthen legal service authorities, and ensures comprehensive support beyond mere compensation. Special consideration is given to vulnerable groups including women, children, and the elderly, with services extending to insurance, disability certificates, and psychological support.
NALSA SPRUHA Scheme 2025
Simultaneously launched, the Supporting Potential and Resilience of the Unseen, Held-back and Affected (SPRUHA) scheme provides dedicated support for dependents of prisoners and crime victims, recognizing the interconnected nature of legal vulnerabilities.
Digital Compendium on Human Wildlife Conflict
NALSA released a comprehensive digital resource compiling national and state-level schemes, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, and policy frameworks related to human-wildlife conflicts. This first-of-its-kind compilation serves as a centralized repository for legal practitioners, policymakers, and affected communities.
Who Is Affected: Stakeholders and Vulnerable Populations
Marginalized Communities Bear Disproportionate Burden
Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant emphasized that “marginalised communities are the most impacted by human-wildlife conflicts as they often lack the necessary knowledge or resources to access legal aid.” Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar of Kerala High Court observed that “tribal people and marginalised communities deserve the protective umbrella of legal services authorities.”
Wild elephant walks through farmland alongside domestic cows, exemplifying human-wildlife conflict in rural India
In Kerala, approximately 150,000 tribal people face constant threats from wildlife, particularly in districts like Wayanad and Idukki. These communities, despite their vital role in conservation, often go unrecognized in broader policy discussions. The legal framework must acknowledge their dual vulnerability – from wildlife attacks and systemic marginalization.
Regional Impact Distribution
Kerala’s human-wildlife conflict statistics reveal stark regional disparities. Over the last decade, 319 human deaths occurred across districts, with Thrissur recording the highest toll (87 deaths), followed by Palakkad (59) and Idukki (44). The northern region, including Wayanad, Kannur, and Kozhikode, experiences the most severe conflicts.
Between 2013-2019, elephants, wild boar, and bonnet macaques caused most incidents, while tigers and leopards were responsible for the highest number of cattle killings. Compensation payments increased from ₹119.3 lakhs in 2009-10 to ₹930.06 lakhs in 2019-20, indicating both rising conflict frequency and enhanced ex-gratia rates.
Practical Steps: Legal Remedies and Implementation
Enhanced Compensation Framework
The conference emphasized comprehensive rehabilitation beyond mere compensation. Kerala’s current ex-gratia rates include ₹10 lakhs for deaths, ₹2 lakhs for snake bite deaths outside forests, up to ₹2 lakhs for permanent disability, and up to ₹1 lakh for injuries. Crop and livestock losses are compensated at 100% of loss, limited to ₹1 lakh per incident and four times annually.
Solar fence with zigzag wire strands installed in a forest area to mitigate human-wildlife conflict in Kerala
NALSA’s new scheme proposes coordination with various government departments to ensure victims receive all entitled benefits, including insurance coverage, disability certificates, and psychological support. The initiative aims to address systematic gaps in current compensation mechanisms.
Preventive Infrastructure and Legal Support
Kerala has constructed extensive preventive infrastructure including 511.22 km of elephant-proof trenches, 2,348.14 km of solar-powered fences, and 66.26 km of elephant-proof walls. However, maintenance deficiencies and institutional arrangements often limit effectiveness.
The legal framework must address these implementation challenges through strengthened accountability mechanisms and clearer jurisdictional responsibilities. NALSA’s scheme provides legal backing for infrastructure maintenance claims and victim support during preventive measure failures.
Early Warning Systems and Technology Integration
Legal frameworks must incorporate technological solutions including early-warning systems, drone monitoring, and radio-collaring of problematic animals. The Wildlife Protection Act requires amendment to explicitly authorize these modern conflict prevention methods while ensuring animal welfare standards.
Open Questions: Legal and Policy Challenges
Constitutional Balance Between Human Rights and Animal Rights
The Supreme Court’s observation in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja that Article 51A(g) represents the “magna carta of animal rights” creates tension with human rights under Article 21. Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s conference remarks about maintaining “precarious balance between humans and animals” due to “inherent culture and belief that you have to share space with animals” highlight this ongoing judicial challenge.
Elephants confront human threats during a tense human-wildlife conflict, illustrating the dangers involved
Future legal frameworks must reconcile expanding animal rights jurisprudence with human safety imperatives, particularly for vulnerable communities lacking alternative livelihood options.
Jurisdictional Complexity and Interstate Coordination
Human-wildlife conflicts transcend state boundaries, requiring interstate legal coordination mechanisms. The Karnataka-Kerala-Tamil Nadu collaboration mentioned at the conference suggests emerging frameworks, but formal legal structures remain underdeveloped.
The federal structure of wildlife protection, with forests in the Concurrent List, creates implementation challenges when conflicts cross jurisdictional boundaries. Legal clarity on interstate animal translocation, compensation sharing, and coordinated response mechanisms requires urgent attention.
Environmental Justice and Climate Change Impacts
As Justice M.M. Sundresh noted, invoking Hubert Reeves’ warning that “Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature,” climate change intensifies human-wildlife conflicts through habitat degradation and resource scarcity.
Legal frameworks must incorporate climate justice principles, ensuring that adaptation measures for human-wildlife coexistence do not disproportionately burden vulnerable communities. The intersection of environmental law, disaster management, and human rights requires comprehensive legal architecture.
Conclusion
The NALSA-KeLSA conference represents a watershed moment in India’s approach to human-wildlife conflict resolution. By launching the pioneering Access to Justice scheme and emphasizing legal remedies alongside traditional forest management approaches, the initiative recognizes that sustainable solutions require both constitutional compliance and practical implementation. The provocative observation about humans as devils in animals’ religion serves as a powerful reminder that our legal frameworks must evolve to protect both human communities and wildlife habitats. As India grapples with increasing urbanization and shrinking forests, the conference’s emphasis on marginalized communities, comprehensive compensation, and interstate coordination provides a roadmap for addressing one of the country’s most pressing environmental justice challenges.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Affected individuals should consult qualified legal practitioners for specific guidance on human-wildlife conflict matters and compensation claims under applicable schemes and statutes.