Owning an animal and answering for the harm it causes are different questions, the Kerala High Court has said, holding that the State cannot avoid liability for wild animal attacks on the ground that it neither owns nor controls the animals. The Court dismissed the State’s second appeal against damages awarded to a Wayanad farmer injured in an elephant attack.
Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has left undisturbed a civil court decree of ₹5,37,030 with interest against the State, awarded to an agriculturist who was trampled by wild elephants near his home. The Court turned down the State’s plea that it owes nothing for animals that roam free in forests [State of Kerala and Others v. Sebastian @ Sabu V K].
Hearing the Regular Second Appeal on October 7, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. dismissed it on October 13, 2026. The appellants were the State, through the District Collector, Wayanad, the Divisional Forest Officer, South Wayanad, and the Forest Range Officer, Thariode.
The injury and the two earlier rulings
The plaintiff, an agriculturist of Thariode in Wayanad, alleged that at about 6 a.m. on July 5, 2017, as he stepped out of his house to milk his cow, three wild elephants charged at and trampled him. He suffered multiple fractures, was hospitalised at Kozhikode from July 5 to July 19, 2017, and underwent surgery. The Forest Range Officer paid him ₹75,000 as emergency relief. He sued for ₹8 lakh, attributing the incident to the absence of proper electric fencing and trenches where forest land meets private property.
By judgment dated March 31, 2021, the Munsiff’s Court, Kalpetta, decreed ₹5,37,030 with 8 per cent interest. It noted that the compensation scheme did not bar a civil action and that the State had produced no documents to back its claim of solar fencing. On December 20, 2025, the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery, dismissed the State’s appeal, relying on State of Kerala v. V.V. George. The State then moved the High Court.
What the State argued
According to the State, strict liability for wild animals applies only where an animal is kept in someone’s custody and escapes. Free-roaming forest animals, it said, are neither in its custody nor under its control, and attacks by them are akin to accidents, force majeure or acts of God. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Centre for Environment Law, WWF India v. Union of India and said V.V. George was per incuriam for not considering it. It also contended that the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980, capped relief at ₹75,000, which had already been paid.
The Court’s answer on ownership and duty
The Court read Centre for Environment Law as an explanation of the legal status of wildlife and the State’s duty to conserve it, not as a ruling that the State is immune from liability for damage caused by wild animals.
“The absence of ownership or physical custody of wild animals does not, by itself, exclude the application of the doctrine of strict liability.”
The two decisions, it found, do not conflict. The State may not own wild animals as private property, but it carries a statutory and public duty to protect and manage them, grounded in Article 48A of the Constitution and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Weighing wildlife protection against citizens’ right to life under Article 21, the Court said the State must take reasonable measures against human-wildlife conflict.
How far that duty goes
“The State’s duty is one of reasonable care; it is not a requirement to fence the entire forest. It must provide appropriate fencing near human habitations.”
Sections 9 and 11 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act prohibit hunting, with limited permission to kill an animal in self-defence against an attack on a person, and not to protect property. In that light, the Court held, the State cannot shift to citizens the burden of protecting their property when they are barred from taking such measures. The defendants had placed no documents or other evidence on record of the solar fencing, trenches, wall or watchers they claimed, so the courts below were justified in finding negligence. The quantum awarded was not challenged.
The ₹75,000 limit under the 1980 Rules
Turning to the cap, the Court followed its earlier ruling in Wildlife Warden v. Thadathil Saramma, which held that the 1980 Rules provide expeditious ex gratia relief and are not the sole and exclusive remedy. The Court observed:
“Citizens may claim compensation for harm caused by wild animals, whether or not their claims are expressly covered by a Government order, scheme or provision.”
Since a victim may approach a civil court for damages when the maximum under the Rules falls short, the Court saw no ground to interfere under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the appeal.
Takeaway
The argument that wild animals, being res nullius or the nation’s property, put their harm beyond the State’s responsibility is now closed off. Liability turns on the State’s own conduct, namely its statutory and constitutional duty to take reasonable preventive steps near human habitations, and not on who owns the animal.
For victims in Kerala, the fixed ex gratia amounts under the 1980 Rules are a floor, and a civil suit stays open where those sums fall short of the actual loss. The State can meet such a claim only with evidence of the preventive measures it says it took.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v. Sebastian @ Sabu V K
Case Number: RSA No. 449 of 2026
Bench: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Senior Government Pleader Kannan M. for the appellants; Advocates Mithun P., Merin Thomas and Sumeen S. for the respondent