High Courts Tackle Human-Wildlife Conflict and Religious Rights in Landmark PILs

NEW DELHI – High Courts in Kerala and Punjab & Haryana are currently adjudicating two significant Public Interest Litigations (PILs) that strike at the heart of contentious legal and social issues: the escalating human-wildlife conflict and the protection of religious freedom under the Constitution. While geographically and thematically distinct, both cases highlight the judiciary's pivotal role in compelling government action and balancing competing rights through constitutional interpretation.

The Kerala High Court is examining a plea to enforce a Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) report on mitigating wildlife attacks, while the Punjab and Haryana High Court is considering a demand for standardized national guidelines for carrying the Sikh ‘Kirpan’. Both petitions underscore a growing trend of citizens and advocacy groups turning to the courts to address legislative and executive inertia on critical matters.

---

Kerala High Court: A Multi-Pronged Attack on Human-Wildlife Conflict Inaction

In a comprehensive PIL, animal rights activist Angels Nair has brought the pressing issue of human-wildlife conflict before the Kerala High Court, seeking judicial intervention on multiple fronts. The petition's central demand is for a directive compelling the state government to implement the recommendations of a 2023 CAG report titled 'Implementation of preventive & mitigative measures in respect of Human Wildlife Conflict'. The petitioner argues that the government's failure to act on these expert recommendations is a dereliction of its duty to protect both its human and wildlife populations.

This case elevates the CAG report from a mere audit document to a potential legally enforceable blueprint for policy. The petitioner seeks to establish a precedent where the meticulously researched findings of the CAG, once tabled in the Assembly, cannot be ignored without consequence.

Challenging Local Governance and Forest Department Practices

The PIL extends beyond a simple plea for implementation. It specifically challenges two controversial local actions, framing them as violations of national law and constitutional principles.

First, the petition targets a resolution by the Chakkittapara Grama Panchayat in Kozhikode district, which reportedly sought to empanel 20 shooters to kill wild animals entering human settlements. The petitioner, Angels Nair, has taken the extraordinary step of labelling this action "anti-national" and "treason," arguing that it usurps the authority of state and central wildlife laws and promotes an anarchic approach to conservation. This raises a critical legal question about the limits of local self-governance under the Panchayati Raj system when it conflicts with a subject—wildlife protection—that falls under the Concurrent List of the Constitution.

Second, the plea seeks a judicial ban on the elephant-repelling activities of the Forest Department's own Rapid Response Team (RRT). The petitioner makes the novel legal argument that the aggressive methods used by the RRT, such as chasing and driving elephants, fall within the definition of 'hunting' under Section 2(16) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Act defines 'hunting' broadly to include not just killing or trapping but also "driving... any wild animal." The petition contends that these "unscientific" activities provoke the animals, leading to retaliatory attacks on humans and exacerbating the very conflict they are meant to solve.

The petition also calls for the dismantling of improperly erected barricades and fences on elephant corridors, arguing they disrupt natural migration patterns and force animals into human-dominated landscapes. If the court accepts these arguments, it could fundamentally reshape the operational protocols of forest departments across the country in managing wildlife conflict.

---

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Defining the Contours of Religious Freedom

Simultaneously, the Punjab and Haryana High Court is grappling with a PIL that seeks to harmonize the fundamental right to religious freedom with modern security imperatives. Filed jointly by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) and advocate Armanjot Kaur, the petition calls for the Union and State Governments to formulate standardized guidelines for the carrying of the 'Kirpan,' a ceremonial dagger and one of the five articles of faith for baptized Sikhs.

The legal basis for the petition is firmly rooted in Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Explanation I to Article 25 explicitly states that "the wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion." The petitioners argue that despite this clear constitutional protection, the absence of uniform rules has led to "arbitrary restrictions" and "repeated violations" of this fundamental right.

A Personal Ordeal Highlights Systemic Ambiguity

The urgency of the issue is underscored by the personal experience of the co-petitioner, Advocate Armanjot Kaur. She detailed in the plea how she was barred from entering an examination hall for the Rajasthan Judicial Services competitive exam on June 23, 2024, because she was carrying a small Kirpan. According to her submission, the judicial officer at the entry point refused her entry, disregarding her explanation of its constitutional protection under Article 25.

This incident is presented not as an isolated event but as a symptom of a larger systemic problem. It highlights the conflict that arises when general security protocols, often designed with a one-size-fits-all approach, clash with specific, constitutionally protected religious practices. The petitioner’s subsequent disqualification from the exam, despite meeting all other eligibility criteria, demonstrates the tangible harm caused by this lack of regulatory clarity.

The High Court has issued notices to the Centre and the respective state governments, signaling its intent to delve into this complex constitutional matter. The outcome of this case could lead to the establishment of a national framework that specifies permissible sizes, modes of carrying, and contexts (e.g., air travel, examinations, government buildings) for the Kirpan. Such guidelines would aim to provide certainty for both Sikhs exercising their religious rights and security personnel enforcing safety measures, thereby preventing future confrontations and litigation.

---

Broader Legal Implications and Judicial Scrutiny

Both PILs, though addressing different subject matters, converge on the theme of judicial oversight of executive and administrative functions.

In Kerala, the court is being asked to enforce the findings of an independent constitutional body (the CAG) and scrutinize the legal validity of actions taken by both local panchayats and the state's own Forest Department. A ruling in favour of the petitioner could empower citizens to use CAG reports as a tool for ensuring government accountability, particularly in environmental governance.

In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the judiciary is tasked with providing a practical and uniform interpretation of a fundamental right. The case requires a delicate balancing act—upholding an essential religious practice while acknowledging legitimate state interests in security. A successful outcome would reinforce the judiciary’s role as the ultimate arbiter and protector of constitutional freedoms, providing clarity where legislative and executive branches have not.

As both cases proceed, the legal community will be watching closely. The judgments have the potential to set far-reaching precedents, influencing policy on wildlife management, the scope of local governance, the enforcement of religious rights, and the very power of public interest litigation to catalyze governmental action.