Court affirms State's duty to take reasonable preventive measures against human-wildlife conflict and rules that statutory compensation is not the sole remedy for victims of wild animal attacks.
In a landmark judgment dated October 13, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., affirmed the liability of the State of Kerala for injuries caused by a wild elephant attack on a resident near a forest area. The decision clarifies that while wild animals are not owned or possessed by the State, the State nonetheless has a constitutional and statutory duty to protect citizens from such attacks through reasonable preventive measures.
The case arose when the respondent, Sebastian @ Sabu V K, an agriculturist residing in Thariode, was attacked by three wild elephants on July 5, 2017, causing him serious injuries and permanent disability. After initial medical treatment costing over Rs. 5,00,000, the State authorities paid him an ex gratia amount of Rs. 75,000 under the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980. The victim sought further compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 through a civil suit, contending that the State failed to provide adequate protective measures such as fencing or trenches where the forest adjoined private land.
The State argued that wild animals roaming freely in forests are not under its ownership or physical custody, hence it should not be held liable. It also submitted that the maximum statutory compensation had already been paid, which discharged its liability. Further, the State contended that it was impracticable to prevent every such attack and that individuals near forests should take reasonable care themselves.
Rejecting the State's contentions, the High Court emphasized that the absence of ownership or physical custody of wild animals does not absolve the State of liability. The Court referred to constitutional provisions-Article 21 guaranteeing the right to life, and Article 48A mandating the State to protect wildlife-and relevant sections (9 and 11) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It held that the State must balance wildlife conservation with its duty to safeguard citizens by taking reasonable measures, such as fencing near human habitations, to prevent human-wildlife conflicts.
The Court found that the State failed to prove that any effective preventive measures like electric fencing, trenches, or watchers were in place at the relevant site. The trial and appellate courts had rightly held the State negligent and awarded Rs. 5,37,030 as compensation, inclusive of medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and permanent disability. The High Court upheld these awards, noting that the statutory compensation rules provide only ex gratia relief and do not restrict a victim's right to seek full and just compensation through civil courts.
This judgment reconciles earlier conflicting views by clarifying that the State's statutory duty toward wildlife protection does not exempt it from liability for damages caused by wild animals straying beyond forests. It reinforces the principle of strict liability in tort law concerning wild animal attacks and recognizes the victim's constitutional right to adequate compensation.
The Kerala High Court's ruling is a significant precedent emphasizing the State's proactive role in preventing human-wildlife conflict and ensuring justice for victims, while simultaneously safeguarding ecological and environmental security.
Bottom Line:
Wild animal attack - State has duty to take reasonable measures to prevent human-wildlife conflict near human habitations - Ex gratia compensation under Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980 is not the exclusive remedy - Victim can maintain civil suit for just compensation exceeding statutory/executive scheme amount - In absence of proof of preventive measures like fencing, trenches, wall or watchers, Courts justified in finding negligence and awarding damages.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 21, Article 48A of the Constitution of India; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Sections 9, 11; Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980; Code of Civil Procedure Section 100
State of Kerala v. Sebastian @ Sabu V K, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001705
