The Supreme Court today refused to entertain the Public Interest Litigation seeking protection of the elephant corridors by notifying them as a National Park or Elephant sanctuaries and bringing back of the elephant known as ‘Arikomban’ back to its natural habitat to Chinnakkanal in Kerala.

"We are not going to now start monitoring Tuskers from here. The experts are doing it", said the Bench when the Counsel submitted that the Tusker needs to be monitored for two years.

The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra in its order observed that "We are not inclined to entertain the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution having regard to the fact the petitioner will have efficacious alternative remedies available which can be pursued in accordance with the law. We accordingly permit the Petitioner to either move a representation before the competent authority or move the appropriate Judicial forum."

Advocate Maitreyi S. Hegde along with Advocate-on-Record Priyanka Prakash appeared for the Petitioners, C. R. Neelakandan and V.K. Anandan. At the outset of the hearing, CJI Chandrachud remarked "Move your Petition before the Kerala High Court, why have you come here under Article 32? We have enough Petitions pending here, if you want to intervene then intervene. You want to file a fresh Petition before the Kerala High Court where a number of Petitions are pending, you can go there."

Responding to the query, the Counsel submitted "I expected this question, the problem is not pertaining to Kerala alone, in the last 3 years 1500 humans death have occurred and 300 elephants have died throughout India." She added that "Firstly, the problem of 'Arikomban' is not pertaining to Kerala alone. I have sought directions from the Tamil Nadu government also, and the Kerala High Court cannot issue any directions to the Tamil Nadu government." The Counsel stated that another issue is translocation which has taken place, which has evidently failed according to the Petitioners.

Further, highlighting the relocation of the rogue elephant Arikomban from the Munnar-Chinnakanal area in Kerala to the Parambikulam tiger reserve area in Tamil Nadu, the counsel submitted, "When this Court had not interfered, then the translocation had not happened. Because of that erroneous translocation, Tamil Nadu Government had to spend around Rs. 80 Lakhs."

Considering that the present PIL was concerning the elephant 'Arikomban', the Bench remarked that they have already upheld the Kerala High Court's order. CJI Chandrachud also stated that "The problem is these PILs are motivated by some other....It is really directed against the translocation of that Arikomban. For all we know, it is really at the behest of somebody else." The Bench accordingly refused to consider the matter.

"You apply to the wildlife board, let them consider it", Justice Narasimha said. The Bench refused to tag the case with pending matters about the elephant corridor and said that the Petitioners may intervene in those matters.

The PIL filed stated that the total failure on the part of the State of Kerala in mitigating Human Elephant Conflicts (HEC) induced by the reckless and arbitrary decisions, in the Chinnakkanal area for two decades and thus resulting in the violation of the plethora of fundamental rights of the citizens, directly and indirectly, has given rise to this writ petition.

"The present petition is filed in the wake of a series of havoc that took place in the State of Kerala and the State of Tamil Nadu over a wild elephant, popularly known as ‘Arikomban’", read the plea. It was submitted that even after the translocation of the tusker, HEC events are reported from the region which shows that it is not Arikomban who was responsible for all the HEC incidents and translocating him did not have much effect on the problem.

It was also said in the plea that though preserving the corridors and relocating the human settlements in the said area is the permanent solution, no steps have been taken so far and it is pertinent to note that preserving the original corridors or habitat or restoring the same has not been even considered as an available option.

The following prayers were made in the PIL: "A) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent/State of Kerala to notify the Chinnakkanal region as a National Park or Elephant Sanctuary under the provisions of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 after an extensive study on the area that is to be preserved, the possible extent, the challenges and the way ahead; B). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent/State of Kerala to prepare a voluntary scheme such as Rebuild Kerala Development scheme or Project Tiger to relocate human settlements vulnerable to Human- Elephant Conflict incidents in the Chinnakkanal area to a suitable place for land cultivation with necessary amenities along with a suitable compensation within a period of three months; C). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd and 5th respondents / States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to take all necessary measures to bring the elephant known as ‘Arikomban’ back to its natural habitat to Chinnakkanal after relocation of human settlements in the Human- Elephant Conflict; D) Appoint an expert committee to form standard guidelines to address Human- Elephant Conflict concerns and long term solutions to be followed by the state governments and the Union government while addressing the Human- Elephant Conflict incidents, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court affected area within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court."

Cause Title: C. R. Neelakandan & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 000632 - / 2023]

Chief Justice DY ChandrachudJustice PS NarasimhaJustice Manoj MisraArikombanPIL

Ramey Krishan Rana