Injury caused by wild animal is State's failure to protect right to life: Bombay High Court

Observing that the State has a twin responsibility to protect both wild animals and citizens, the Bombay High Court on Monday ordered the Maharashtra government to pay ₹10 lakh compensation to a widow who lost her husband to an accident caused by a wild boar attack. [Anuja Arun Redij v. State of Maharashtra].A Division Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Gauri Godse said that the object of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is to protect the wildlife, as also citizens from wild animals."It is necessary to note that it is the duty of the concerned officer of the State Government to protect wild animals and not allow them to wander outside the restricted safety zone. Similarly, as a corollary duty, it is also the obligation cast upon the concerned officers to protect the citizens from any injuries by the wild animals. Thus, it is a twin obligation of the State Government.".The Bench was hearing a widow's plea seeking monetary compensation as per a Government Resolution (GR) issued for providing financial help to citizens attacked by wild animals. She pointed out that she had made an application before the concerned authorities in February 2019 and again repeated the same a month later. .It was noted that the State did not produce any such GR on record. In this light, the Bench opined,"In any case, 48 hours timeline is irrelevant so far as the claim made by the Petitioner is concerned. In any event this will not absolve the State from its liability to pay compensation. A human life is lost in the accident thus the reasons given by the authorities and its communication itself is illegal and unjustified.".Further, the Bench said if a wild animal causes injury to any person, it amounts to a failure of the State government to protect the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. "Therefore, if any wild animal causes injury to any person, this in fact is a failure of the State Government to protect right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, it is clear from the said GR that the citizens who suffer loss due to wild animals are entitled to compensation. Thus, the said GR creates an additional obligation on the State Government to protect the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In our view even dehors the said GR it is the obligation of the State to pay reasonable compensation, as it could not protect the right to life of the deceased. Thus, the State's approach is not acceptable and in fact is dis-heartening," the order stated..The Court thus ordered the authorities to compensate the widow with an interest of 6 per cent. It further ordered the authorities to pay her costs of ₹50,000 for rejecting her application on account of hyper-technicalities. .Senior Advocate Ram Apte and Advocate Ketan Dhavle appeared for the petitioner widow. Additional Government Pleader Milind More represented the State. .[Read order]