Bombay HC Refuses To Hear PIL Seeking Compensation For Snake Bite

The Bombay High Court recently refused a petition seeking financial assistance for victims of snake and scorpion bites in Maharashtra.

The petition was filed by the secretary of an organization called Nisarga Vidnyan Sanstha, whose members assist in the capture of snakes and scorpions that have entered human habitats. The petitioner expressed concern about the plight of organization members who become infected while catching snakes and scorpions, as they receive no financial assistance from the state.

He emphasized that there is already a compensation scheme in place, the Gopinath Mundhe Insurance Scheme, to provide financial assistance to farmers and their blood relatives who have been bitten by snakes.

It was argued that there was no reason why a benefit already provided to farmers since 2018 by the Maharashtra government could not be extended to other citizens who are also at risk of snake bites.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne disposed of the PIL, stating that such issues should be decided by the State government.

The bench said, “It is up to the State Government to consider the Petitioner’s grievances regarding financial aid for other people who died as a result of snake bites. This Court would not direct the Government to implement a specific policy because doing so would violate the State Government’s jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Indian Constitution.”

However, the Court reasoned that financial aid is a policy decision made by the State government under Article 162 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court stated that it could not intervene in the matter.

The High Court also stated that when developing the policy for granting financial aid to farmers and their families, the government had viewed farmers who died from snake bites as a different class. Farmers are the ones who work in fields, the Court observed.

The Court explained, “The State Government under its wisdom has considered farmers to form a different class than the other citizens and the benevolent scheme has been floated for the farmers. Farmers who are bitten by snakes are compensated because they were already covered by previous government resolutions for compensation arising from death or injury caused by wild animals. In consideration of the farmers’ welfare, the decision was made to extend the benefit of compensation even for snake bite.”

Hence, the Court declined to take up the issue.