"Man Would Be Devil": Top Judiciary Calls for Coexistence and Constitutional Duty at Human-Wildlife Conflict Conference

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA – In a significant confluence of judicial and legal minds, a two-day national conference aimed at confronting the escalating crisis of human-wildlife conflict commenced in Kerala, featuring powerful calls from Supreme Court judges to re-evaluate humanity's relationship with nature and uphold constitutional duties of compassion. The event, organised by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA), brought together senior members of the judiciary, the Attorney General for India, and state legal authorities to devise strategies for what is an increasingly contentious legal and social issue.

The conference's tone was set by Supreme Court Justice MM Sundresh, who delivered a poignant and reflective address on the origins of the conflict. He argued that the issue stems directly from human actions driven by a relentless pursuit of development, often at the expense of natural habitats. To encapsulate the moral dimensions of the conflict, Justice Sundresh shared a powerful message he had received, stating, "If animals could have a religion, man would be devil." This stark observation resonated through the inaugural session, framing the discourse not just as a matter of law and policy, but of ethical responsibility.

A Constitutional Reminder: The Forgotten Duty of Compassion

Delving into the legal and constitutional framework, Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna highlighted a troubling shift in societal attitudes. She posited that India, a nation with a deep-rooted culture of sharing space with all living beings, is increasingly adopting a dangerously anthropocentric worldview. Justice Nagarathna directly linked this trend to a dereliction of a fundamental duty enshrined in the Constitution.

"It appears from recent trends that the trajectory is towards human-centric approach and there is a disregard of a fundamental duty enshrined under 51(A)(G)," she remarked. Article 51(A)(g) of the Constitution of India mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizen "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures." Her comments serve as a critical reminder to the legal fraternity and policymakers that coexistence is not merely a philosophical ideal but a constitutional imperative.

To illustrate the innate situational awareness and emotional capacity of animals, Justice Nagarathna recounted a compelling incident from near Mangalore where a leopard and a dog, both accidentally trapped in a farmhouse toilet overnight, emerged peacefully in the morning. "The leopard didn't eat up the dog, because it knew both were ultimately captive," she explained, using the anecdote to argue that animals are context-aware beings, a fact often overlooked in human-centric legal and developmental frameworks.

Navigating Contentious Legal Battles and Social Realities

The complex and often emotive nature of cases involving animal rights was humorously acknowledged by Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath. Currently presiding over a three-judge bench hearing the contentious stray dog issue in Delhi, Justice Nath quipped that the case has brought him unexpected international recognition. "I am thankful to the stray dogs for making me known to the entire civil society, not only in this country but world over," he said in good humour. His light-hearted comments underscored the serious challenge judges face in balancing animal rights, public safety, and deeply held societal beliefs, issues that often attract intense public scrutiny and international attention.

The conference also addressed the critical need for a structured and multi-faceted legal approach. Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, articulated a tripartite framework for tackling the problem, urging stakeholders to consider conflict avoidance, conflict management, and conflict resolution as distinct but interconnected facets. "No one common regulatory framework for all of them may work," he cautioned, advocating for nuanced and context-specific legal solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

The Kerala Context: Where Conflict Hits the Vulnerable

The choice of Kerala as the venue for the conference was particularly relevant. As a state characterised by high population density, rich biodiversity, and significant forest cover, it has become a hotspot for human-animal encounters. Speakers, including Kerala Law Minister P Rajeev and Kerala High Court Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, emphasised the state's unique challenges.

Chief Justice Jamdar drew particular attention to the socio-economic dimensions of the conflict, pointing out that its most severe impacts are borne by the most marginalised communities. "Those who face the main affect of this conflict are the members of vulnerable sections of society—tribals and vulnerable communities. They are also entitled to the protective umbrella of the Legal Services Authority Act," he stated. His intervention firmly positioned the issue within the ambit of social justice and the mandate of legal services authorities, which are tasked with providing access to justice for the poor and marginalised. Frequent reports of wild boars and elephants clashing with people in areas bordering forests, often resulting in tragic loss of life and livelihood, underscore the urgency of his words.

As the conference proceeds, the legal community will be watching closely for the development of concrete action plans and policy recommendations. The powerful statements from the apex court's judges have already sent a clear signal: the judiciary is increasingly viewing human-wildlife conflict not as a peripheral environmental issue, but as a core challenge that touches upon constitutional duties, fundamental rights, and the very principles of justice and coexistence.