An Alternative Site Suggested By Forest Dept. To Translocate Rice-Eating Tusker: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court today directed the expert panel appointed by it and the state government to take a final decision by May 3.

On the alternative site suggested by the forest department for translocating rice-eating tusker ‘Arikomban’.

The direction by the High Court came after the Forest Department stated that it had an alternative location in mind and would place the same before the Committee of Experts (CoE) appointed by it to decide the fate of Arikomban for its consideration.

The division bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Gopinath P directed the state government and the CoE to consult with each other and arrive at a decision before the next date of hearing on May 3.

Therefore, it asked the CoE to examine the feasibility of the alternative site for translocating Tusker and to keep details of the recommended location confidential.

Further, the bench stated that “If the committee approves of the alternative site suggested by the (forest) department, then the process of translocating the elephant can proceed without waiting for the orders of the court.”

The court heard a PIL by 2 animal rights groups — People for Animals (PFA), Trivandrum Chapter, and the Walking Eye Foundation for Animal Advocacy — opposing the government’s decision to keep the elephant in captivity and train it to become a kumki elephant.

Kumkis are captive elephants trained for use in trapping and capturing wild elephants.

On April 12, the court gave the state a week’s time to come up with an alternative location to translocate the elephant after the government stated that people living close to Parambikulam Tiger Reserve in the Palakkad district of Kerala were objecting to moving Arikomban there as suggested by the CoE.

The government’s submission came during the hearing of a plea moved by CPI(M) MLA from Nenmara Assembly constituency K Babu, seeking a review of the court’s April 5 order agreeing with the CoE suggestion.

Therefore, the court declined to review its order but had given the state a week’s time to come up with an alternative location.