Allahabad High Court Mandates Action Plan to Address Monkey Menace Across Uttar Pradesh
The Allahabad High Court has issued a significant directive, requiring district-level committees across Uttar Pradesh to present comprehensive action plans aimed at tackling the escalating monkey menace. This judicial intervention follows a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that underscores the growing conflict between humans and animals, particularly rhesus macaques, throughout the state.
PIL Seeks Constitutional Balance Between Human and Animal Rights
The PIL, filed by petitioners Vineet Sharma and Prajakta Singhal, advocates for a delicate balance between human rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the fundamental rights of animals. Specifically, the litigation emphasizes animals' rights to food and freedom from cruelty, highlighting the ethical dimensions of the conflict.
A division bench comprising Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Kunal Ravi Singh presided over the hearing. The court has scheduled the case to be listed as fresh on April 6, indicating ongoing judicial scrutiny of this pressing issue.
Court Directs Submission of Existing Action Plans and Affidavits
In its order dated February 17, the high court explicitly instructed authorities to apprise the court of action plans already implemented under existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for districts like Ghaziabad and Mathura. This information must be submitted through an affidavit before the next hearing date, ensuring transparency and accountability in governmental efforts.
The court's directive states: "In view of the proposed study, we find that the action plan, which the authority has taken under the existing SOPs in respect of Ghaziabad and Mathura, be apprised to the high court on or before the next date of hearing through an affidavit."
Systematic Study Required for Effective Management Strategy
Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal presented the state's perspective before the bench. He argued that developing a robust and effective action plan necessitates at least one year, contingent upon a thorough systematic field survey. This study is crucial to understand the population status of rhesus monkeys, identify conflict hotspots, and formulate a management strategy to mitigate the menace across Uttar Pradesh.
Goyal submitted that until baseline data is ascertained through such a study, authorities can rely on existing SOPs titled "instructions regarding the capture, transportation, and release of monkeys" and "proposed tentative action plan to address the issue of the monkeys." He assured the court that a high-power committee is already operational under these proposed SOPs, and all necessary steps will be taken to control the monkey menace.
Petitioners Highlight Statewide Crisis of Monkey Attacks and Starvation
Counsel for the petitioners, Akash Vashishtha and Pawan Tiwari, presented a grim portrayal of the situation. They described communities across Uttar Pradesh battling monkey mayhem, while the animals themselves suffer from hunger and starvation. To substantiate their claims, they cited newspaper reports detailing monkey attacks in multiple districts including Kaushambi, Prayagraj, Sitapur, Bareilly, and Agra.
This evidence underscores that the problem is not confined to isolated incidents but represents a widespread, statewide crisis affecting both human safety and animal welfare. The petitioners' arguments reinforce the urgency for a coordinated and humane response from state authorities.
The Allahabad High Court's intervention marks a critical step toward addressing this complex issue, balancing legal, ethical, and practical considerations in managing human-animal conflicts in Uttar Pradesh.
