1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF

Shakti Prasad Nayak Petitioner

S/o Late Gouranga Charan Nayak,
R/o. Room No- 15,
Plot no- F-88-B,
C/o Iswar Singh,
PS- Vasant Vihar,
Po- Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016

Vs.

1. Union of India
Through
Secretary, Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Railway Board through its Chairman

Indian Railways, Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001

3. Ministry of Environment and Forest

Government of India, through its
Secretary, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110 003

4. State of Orissa
through its Chief Secretary
Orissa Secretariat
 2

Bhubaneswar-751001(Odisha)

5. State of West Bengal

Through its Chief Secretary
Writers’ Building
Kolkata-700001(W.B.)

6. State of Assam through its

Chief Secretary
Dispur
Guwahati-6 (Assam)

7. State of Uttarakhand through

its Chief Secretary
Uttarakhand Secretariate
4, Subhash Marg
Dehradun( U.K.)

8. State of Uttar pradesh

through its Chief Secretary
Government of Uttar Pradesh
Secretariat, Lucknow(U.P.)

9. State of Madhya Pradesh through its

Chief Secretary
Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal-462004

10. State of Chattisgarh

through its Chief Secretary,
DKS Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Raipur-492001

11. State of Tamil Nadu

through its Chief Secretary

 3

Government of Tamil Nadu

Secretariat, Chennai-600009

12. State of Kerala through

its Chief Secretary

Government of Kerala

Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

13. State of Karnataka

through its Chief Secretary
Government of Karnataka
3rd Floor, R. No. 320, Vidhan Saudha,
Secretariat, Bangalore-560001

14. State of Jharkhand through its

Chief Secretary

Government of Jharkhand

Secretariat, Ranchi-834004 Respondents

A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE NATURE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION CHALLENGING
THE INACTION OF MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST,
INDIAN RAILWAYS AND MANY STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR
FAILURE TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL WEALTH LIKE THE
ELPHENATS WHICH IS ANTITHETICAL TO ARTICLE 48 A AND 51
A (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SECTION 39 & SECTION
50 OF WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF
THE INDIAN FOREST ACT 1927, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, FOREST
CONSERVATIONACT,1981,PREVENTION OF CRUELITY TO ANIMALS
ACT,1960
 4

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS HON’BLE COMPANION JUSTICES

OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That this petition has been under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India in the nature of public interest litigation challenging inaction

of Indian Railways, the Ministry of Forest and Environment and

various state governments in containing widespread number of

death of elephants on Railway track and due to electrocution or

being hit by trains. There has been increasing elephant mortality

on Railway track and due to electrocution which is antithesis to the

Article 48-A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution of India and

provisions of Wild life Protection Act, 1972 especially Sections 39

and 50, the Indian Forest Act, Indian Penal Code, Forest

Conservation Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1986

and rules made thereunder. The Petitioner is seeking the following

reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or

direction directing respondents 1 to 14 to initiate appropriate

steps forthwith to prevent such killings of elephants on the track

and due to electrocution;

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or

direction directing all respondents to initiate appropriate action and

 5

pass necessary directions to prevent such incidence of death of

elephant on railway track;

c. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or

direction directing the respondents and the concerned authorities

under them to take such measures so as to develop and enforce

such procedures and mechanisms to comply with the safety and

security and protection of this endangered species;

d. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order and

direction laying down guidelines, devising strategy to protect

elephants with respect to prevention of such occurrences by the

Respondents who are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India;

e. Issue such other appropriate writ or direction that may be deemed

to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case

and in the interest of justice.

2. That the petitioner- a citizen of India and interested in

safeguarding the interest of public at large and ventilating the

grievances of public regarding the issues of public importance, in

the exercise of his duty in terms of Article 51 A (g) of the

Constitution and with a view to promote the Rule of Law, has

preferred the instant Writ Petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India in Public Interest. The petitioner is a journalist

in a regional newspaper and based in Delhi. He is a public spirited

person and takes lead in various issues of public interest before the

authorities. He has a special interest for preservation and

 6

protection of the wildlife and keeps writing in newspapers on the

wild life and environmental issues regularly.

3. That Respondent No. 1 & 2 is the Secretary and Chairman of the

Indian Railways Board respectively. Indian Railways (reporting

mark IR) is a statutory body incorporated originally under the

Indian Railways Act, 1890 and later consolidated under The

Railways Act, 1989. It is a Government enterprise headquartered

in New Delhi, India owned and operated by the Government of

India through the Ministry of Railways. It is administered by the

Railway Board, which has a Chairman, five members and a

Financial Commissioner. Indian Railways has 114,500 kilometers

(71,147 miles) of total track over a route of 65,000 kilometers

(40,389 miles) and 7,500 stations. It has the world's fourth largest

railway network after those of the United States, Russia and China.

It carries over 30 million passengers and 2.8 million tons of freight

daily. In 2011-2012 Railway earned a sum of Rs 104278.79 cores

in revenue which consists of Rs 69675.97 cores from freight and

28645.52 cores from passengers tickets. It is the world's fourth

largest commercial or utility employer, by number of employees,

with over 1.4 million employees. In terms of rolling stock, IR owns

over 240,000 (freight) wagons, 60,000 coaches and 9,000

locomotives. It is thus “State” in terms of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India and amenable to writ jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court under Article 32. Respondent No. 3 is Ministry of

Environment and Forest Government of India, represented by its

Secretary. Respondent No. 4 is the state of Orissa which is

 7

represented by its Chief Secretary, Respondent No 5 is the state of

West Bengal represented by its Chief Secretary and Respondent No

6 is the State of Assam represented by its Chief Secretary.

Respondent No 4, 5, and 6 are the relevant stake holders and the

recent incidence of killing of elephants on the railway track has

happened on their territories. Respondents Nos. 7 to 14 are the

States where there is a major elephant population

4. That Railways and highways are a major source of wildlife mortality

throughout the world. Railways also cause direct loss of habitat,

degradation of habitat quality, habitat fragmentation, population

fragmentation/ isolation and reduce access to vital habitats. In

India also, a large number of wild species are being killed annually

due to railways and highways.

5. That the cause of action for this writ petition arises out of the

inaction of the Indian Railways in adopting a sound policy to avoid

frequent killing of elephants by electrocution or speeding trains in

different parts of the country. Hence this writ petition is an attempt

to arrest such occurrences by virtue of a proper elephant

movement monitoring system and other such well devised and

scientific strategies.

6. That India is home to between 50% to 60% of all of Asia's wild

elephants and about 20% of the domesticated elephants. As such,

 8

the country is of paramount importance for the survival of the

species. The elephant plays a central role in Indian life and has

done for many centuries. Elephants are closely associated with

religious and cultural heritage, playing an important role in the

country's history. They remain revered today. Wild elephants in

India are facing a variety of problems, but most focus around the

usual issues of habitat loss and human-elephant conflict including

the train accidents claiming about 8-10 elephants deaths annually.

7. That the Indian Railway has benefited the people of the country but

its impact on wildlife and wild habitats has been a matter of

increasing concern. Rail routes slicing through wild habitats not

only cause direct mortality and injury to wild animals through

train accidents but also create habitat fragmentation, degradation,

wildlife population fragmentation and reduction of wildlife access to

vital habitats. One of the major losers in this conflict has ironically

been the mascot species of Indian Railways, the Asian elephant.

Elephant deaths in railway accidents have been reported from all

elephant range states in India, with more than 110 train-hit deaths

recorded since 1987. Nearly 90% of these deaths in the past two

decades were recorded in the states of Assam, West Bengal,

Odisha, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand.

8. That there are at least 35 elephants killed due to train hit in Assam

between 1990 and 2006 as per an Occasional Report titled “Deadly

Track” (published in 2006) of the Conflict Mitigation Division of the

 9

Wild Species Programme of the Wildlife Trust of India in

partnership with the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

According to the analysis of the data by dividing the sixteen years

period from 1990 to 2005 into two (leaving out the year 2006 from

analysis, since more than half of the year still remains), the total

number of elephants killed in the first half, during 1990 – 1997 was

six (0.75 per year), compared to twenty eight elephants (3.5 per

year) during 1998 – 2005. This definitely indicates considerable

increase in train accidents and elephant mortality in the recent

past. The number of elephant mortality in a given year was also

high during the period. On several occasions the forest

department hides such cases and instead shows them as cases of

natural death. A copy of the extract of Occasional Report titled

“Deadly Track” (published in 2006) of the Conflict Mitigation

Division of the Wild Species Programme of the Wildlife Trust of

India in partnership with the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Indicating the number of accidents during 1990 to 2006 leading to

elephants mortality is annexed herewith and filed as ANNEXURE-

P-1.(pg. )

9. That a study conducted by some wildlife experts of repute

belonging to the Asian Elephants Specialist Groups (ASEG) which

was published in their Journal Gajah,Vol. 31 (2009) pg. 36-39

suggests that in the North Bengal alone there is increasing trend

of occurrence of accidents on railway tracks in recent years. Over

the period 1958–2008 only in North West Bengal alone 11 cases

have been reported from Gulma (Mahananda sanctuary stretch), 9

 10

deaths from Panjhora (Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary stretch), 2

on Goodhope TE stretch, 4 from the Mongpong stretch (Kalimpong

division), 3 in Jaldapara stretch and 7 from the Rajabhatkhawa

stretch (Buxa Tiger Reserve.) A copy of the article containing the

reports indicating the death of elephants in this track between

1958-2008 on the railway track of north Bengal is annexed

herewith and filed as ANNEXURE-P-2(Pg. )

10. That two elephants were killed when the speeding goods train hits

in the north eastern part of the country. The elephants were

knocked down when the herd of elephants were crossing the track.

Earlier on the same route about six wild elephants were killed by a

passenger train in 2001. A copy of the report published in the

Washington Post dated 10.08.2010 is annexed herewith and filed

as ANNEXURE-P-3(Pg. )

11. That an entire herd of elephants was knocked down by a speeding

train in North Bengal. Seven elephants mowed to death by the

train while the herd was crossing the railway track. Initially two

elephants got trapped on the tracks when other elephants came to

their rescue, a speeding goods train hit them and another five

elephants were killed on the spot and many succumbed to injury.

According to the report this particular track has become notorious

for the pachyderm deaths and it causes every month. A copy of the

report published in the CNN-IBN dated 24.09.2010 is annexed

herewith and filed as ANNEXURE-P-4(pg. )

 11

12. That an elephant died when a goods train hit near Humma

(Odisha) on May 19th, 2012 when the elephants was crossing the

track. A copy of the News paper report published in the Indian

Express dated 20.05.2012 is annexed herewith and filed as

ANNEXURE-P-5(pg )

13. That a speeding inter-city train going to Tinsukia killed a 7 year old

elephants at Kurkuria under Sonapur Range in Kamrup district on

1st August .The female elephants which was separated from its

herd, after being hit was dragged along the track for quite a few

distance. A copy of the Newspaper report carried by the SEVEN

SISTER POST dated 2.08.2012 is annexed herewith and filed as

ANNEXURE-P-6( pg )

14. That two elephants were killed after being hit by a speeding goods

train in Odisha's Keonjhar district. The accident occurred when a

herd of elephants was crossing the railway track in the night of

16th August, 2012 through a forested area near Champua, about

300 km from state capital Bhubaneswar. A copy of the newspaper

report published in DECCAN HEARALD dated 16.8.2012 carrying

the story is annexed herewith and filed as ANNEXURE-P-7(Pg.

15. That there are at least 46 elephants have met their tragic end on

the rail track in the country since 2009 as per a report published by

the Business Standard dated 30.08.2012 borrowing the source

 12

from the Press Trust of India. A total number of 36 elephants were

killed, including five till August 15, 2012 alone in North Frontier

Railway, Railway Minister Mukul Roy said in a written reply in the

Lok Sabha. While in 2009, nine elephants were killed in train-hits,

the casualty rose to 20 in 2010 across the country. However the

casualty decreased next year to 9 and till August 15, 2012 the

figure stood at 8. A copy of the report published in the Business

Standard dated 30.08.2012 carrying the said news is annexed

herewith and filed as ANNEXURE-P-8( Pg )

16. That it is unfortunate and a matter of grave concern that nearly

300 wild elephants have died in the state of Orissa state due to

different reasons including the train accidents in the past five

years, the state's forest and environment minister has said in the

State Assembly which is reported in the BBC India on 31.10.2012.

A copy of the BBC INDIA report dated 31.10.2012 is annexed

herewith and filed as ANNEXURE-P-9(Pg ).

17. That according to the latest CAG report 2012-13 which has also

expressed concerns over the issue of a large number of wild

species are being killed due to accidents in railway tracks and

highways but data maintained are very meagre.Data is, however,

available for large animals like elephants, the CAG noted."Despite

some initiatives by Railways like imposition of speed restrictions,

display of signages and regular clearance of vegetation along the

track. The Railway and Environment and Forests ministries jointly

issued general advisories to prevent train accidents involving

 13

elephants. The advisories included measures like clearance or

vegetation alongside the tracks, sensitising programmes for train

drivers, guards, keeping the track free from food wastes and

engagement of elephant trackers. The audit team checked the

extent of implementation of above measures in three zones -

South Eastern (SE), Southern and North Eastern Frontier (NEF) -

where rate of animal mortality was high.It has found in SE zone

that neither any sensitizing programme was being conducted nor

any action was taken for engagement of elephant trackers. A copy

of the extracts of the CAG Report 2012-13 tabled in the Parliament

on 22.12.2012 is annexed herewith and filed as ANNEXURE-P- 10

(pg. )

18. That the petitioner was very much disturbed and saddened by

seeing the report of the CAG and regular newspaper report on the

death of so many elephants on tracks. He being an animal lover,

concern citizen and a responsible journalist wrote letters to the

Secretary, Ministry of Forest, Government of India and Chairman,

Railway Board, New Delhi seeking redressal of his grievance.

Unfortunately the concerned authorities have never given him a

suitable reply nor did they take any concrete steps to arrest such

unhappy incidents immediately. Just after a few weeks there have

been two major accidents and the elephant mortality has been

about 12. Copies of the said letters dated 26.12.2012 addressing

to the Chairman, Railway Board and Secretary, Ministry of

Environment and Forest, Government of India is annexed herewith

and filed as ANNEXURE-P-11( Colly.) ( Pg )

 14

19. That the Chennai bound Coromandal Express dashed with a herd of

elephants between Rambha and Huma stations in Khurda Road-

Brahmapur section under Khurda Road Division of East Coast

Railway at about 00.43hrs o-n on 30th , December, 2012 midnight.

As a result, six elephants died on the spot. On the same spot there

has been accidents earlier in the month of May, 2012 another

accident took place wherein one elephants was killed on the track.

A copy of the Press release dated 30.12.2012 by the East Coast

Railway, Bhubaneswar is annexed herewith and filed as

ANNEXURE-P-12( pg. )

20. That the East Coast Railways, Bhubaneswar issued a clarification

with respect to the elephant mishap of 30.12 2012 which was

nothing but a manifestation of the typical bureaucratic nature

having engaged in the blame game. The Railway blamed the State

Forest department which informed them late. A copy of the said

Press release dated 2.01.2013 is annexed herewith and filed as

ANNEXURE-P-13( pg )

21. That the after five days of the dreadful accident in Odisha another

big accident was reported to have taken place in Jalpai gudi(West

Bengal). Three jumbos, an adult female and two young males

were killed and two calves injured when the speeding Guwahati-

bound Jhaja Express crashed into them inside West Bengal's Buxa

Tiger Reserve on 6.1.2013. The impact of the crash was such that

the bodies of the elephants were flung more than 200m from the
 15

track. A copy of the Report in BUSINESS STANDARD dated

5.1.2013 carrying the story is annexed herewith and filed as

ANNEXURE-P-14( pg to )

22. That unlike other elephant range states where it is more

widespread, the issue of elephant deaths in railway accidents in

Uttarakhand is localized in a 18km stretch of railway track passing

through Rajaji National Park. Yet, between 1987 and 2002,

Uttarakhand lost about 20 of its 400 plus elephants to train

accidents. A copy of the newspaper report dated 13.01.2013

published in the Tribune, Dehradun edition is annexed herewith

and filed as ANNEXURE-P-15(Pg )

23. That the Chief Minister of Odisha also wrote letter to the Hon’ble

Minister for Forest and Environment expressing concern over the

death Six elephants, including a tusker and two calves, and a

person were killed when Coromandel Express, considered the

fastest train in the country, ran over them near Subalaya in

Ganjam district in the early hours of 31st December, 2012. A copy

of the letter dated 16.01.2013 is annexed herewith and filed as

ANNEXURE-P-16( pg to )

24. That the Petitioner has been of the consistent view that Elephant

accidents have of late become a regular affair in these states.

Trains account for 37 per cent of elephant deaths in the country.

 16

With this killing, the total death toll of elephants due to collision

with speeding train has touched about 10 in the year 2012. On an

average 8 to 10 elephants die each year in train accidents.

25. That the petitioner states that on several occasions the incidents

go unrecorded as the injured elephants simply vanish into the

jungle after being hit by a train. They later die and thus it is

recorded as natural death. In most of the cases, it is the female

and calves who become the victims.

26. That the elephants follow the same route according to their

behaviour and if they are barred or if they find resistance they tend

to go wayward and disturb the neighboring areas.

27. That the petitioner is constrained to file this petition as the

Constitutional mandate under Article 48A and 51 A (g) and various

provisions of the Wild Life Protection Acts and other allied Acts and

rules made thereeunder have not been complied with in letter and

spirit by the Respondent State and their authorities inspite of India

being declared to be a Constitutional Republic which necessarily

envisages the role of the State akin to “parens patriae”. The

skewed understanding of the constitutional scheme has made the

State oblivious of the obligation imposed on it by the said

provisions.
 17

28. That the National Railways of India was a statutory body

incorporated originally under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and

later consolidated under the Railways Act, 1989. The Indian

Railways (hereinafter referred to as the Railways) comes within the

purview of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution

of India. As on today, it enjoys monopoly in the business of

running the rail transport in the country. Its railway lines spin a

web through the length and breathe of the country spanning over

64,015 kms, 17,000 trains, carrying 18 million passengers every

day. Indian Railways is a department owned and controlled by the

Government of India.Indian Railway due to its sheer mammoth

size, importance and earning capacity, has been constituted into a

Ministry by itself. Indian Railways holds a monopoly on the

country's rail transport. It is one of the largest and busiest rail

networks in the world, transporting over six billion passengers and

almost 750 million tonnes of freight annually. The Indian Railways

is the world's largest commercial or utility employer, with more

than 1.6 million employees. But in terms of killing the jumbo it has

attained notoriety.

29. That the seemingly innocent actions of the Railways on elephants’

death in the train accident has certainly come as a big setback for

the countless animal lovers of the country. Furthermore, elephants

and people have enjoyed a close cultural association in India since

historical times. The challenge before the State is therefore to

 18

promote the conservation of wild and captive elephants in the

context of this unhappy incidents being repeated on regular basis.

30. That the conservation and management of elephants in our country

calls for a variety of strategies and responses, depending on the

regional situation. Elephant-human conflicts in terms of elephant

depredation of cultivated crops, damage to property and loss of

human lives have become a major challenge to effective

conservation in several regions of the state. The ecological basis of

such conflicts is rooted in a set of complex factors including loss,

fragmentation and degradation of the natural habitat, regional

changes in land-use pattern, attraction from the superior

palatability and nutritional properties of cultivated plants as

compared to the natural forage of the elephant, social organization

of the elephant with adult males generally becoming more

persistent raiders, and adverse climatic events such as droughts

causing elephant groups to disperse from their native habitats.

There is an urgent need on the part of the relevant authorities to

devise strategies taking into account the aforementioned factors

and come out with a foolproof plan to prevent the recurring

incidents of death elephants on track.

31. That the lands that provide connectivity between key habitats need

to be given greater legal cover. Where they lie entirely within

Reserved Forests, the States may consider bringing them under

the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, whereas, if such lands lie
 19

outside legally-designated forests, they could be notified as

Ecologically Sensitive Areas under the Environment Protection Act,

1986, in accordance with recommendations made in the National

Wildlife Action Plan and Strategy 2002-2016, as well as keeping in

mind the recurring incidents of elephant death.

32. That within the major landscapes that harbour viable populations

of elephants, efforts could be made to restore more recently

fragmented corridors that are still being used by elephants.

However, corridors to address the needs of dispersing animals or

those living in high conflict areas, which do not have much

potential for long-term conservation, should not be attempted

without a detailed study. It is further submitted that building

permanent barriers using railway rails, as has been done in South

Africa could minimize such mishap.

33. That it is imperative for the Forest authorities to properly

understand the elephant movements better and seeing whether

and how connectivity lost due to highways and railway lines can be

restored. Other than these steps, additional measures to address

cross-cutting problems such as electrocution of elephants must

also be part of the strategy.

34. That elephants’ death due to an accident caused by a trains could

be prevented by apriori determination of the position of the

 20

elephants from a distance by the use of thermal infra-red cameras

that can be fitted to the engine. The Elephant's body emits Infra -

Red radiation and that can be caught by the camera. This will help

the train driver to take precautionary measures with enough time

at his disposal for the image can be obtained at a point that is lot

way behind the elephant's position. These cameras extend the

distance of vision much much more than what an ordinary light

beam from the engine can help. The whole process can be

automated using the necessary software which is available

currently, namely image recognition software. This technique will

work for straight stretches of the track but definitely difficult for for

tunnels and curved tracks.

35. That at this juncture it would be incumbent on part of the

Respondents herein who are “State” under Article 12 of the

Constitution to consider the implications of the number elephant

36. The Petitioner made representation before the concerned

authorities who are arrayed as Respondent No. 1 and 3 herein

seeking redressal of the issue. The Petitioner specifically states that

after the said representation there has been more than two

accidents of elephants claiming at least more than 10 elephants.

her has been lot of deliberations and meeting by the concerned

ministries but the end result is they have failed to stop the

accidents.
 21

37. That receiving no reply from the concerned Respondents, the

Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition.

GROUNDS

A. Because the inaction of the Indian Railways leading to the death of

a number of elephants which has been listed as endangered

species by IUCN as the population has declined by at least 50%

over the last three generations estimated to be 60–75 years.

Though the species is pre-eminently threatened by habitat loss,

degradation and fragmentation, scanty attention being paid by the

authorities.

B. Because conservation of wildlife is of immense importance to the

mankind. The extinction of wild life will ultimately lead to the

extinction of human race itself. Since the orgin of life, wildlife is

maintaining an ecological balance. The wildlife must be preserved

as they are having immense aesthetic value and it gives grace to

the biosphere. Hence the state as well as citizens is under duty and

obligation to protect the wildlife and to have compassion of living

creatures.

C. Because Article 51 A (g) of the Constitution mandates that it shall

be the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve

 22

the natural environment including forests and Wildlife. The

Directive Principles of State policy – Article 48 A, mandate that the

State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and

to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. This Court in

its decisions has relied on the directive principles to enlarge the

scope and content of the fundamental rights, thereby bringing

them within the ambit of justiciable rights. Thus, the preservation

of ecology and environment based on the principle of sustainable

development to reconcile the conflicting interest of development

with the preservation of healthy environment has been recognized

as a facet of right to life. The principle adopted is that ecology and

environment are not objects of ownership but are nature’s gift

intended to be preserved in trust for the future generation. They

also empower citizens/ institutions to constructively participate in

the process of protecting forests and wildlife.

D. Because of the Loss of significant extents of elephants range and

suitable habitat continues; their free movement is impeded by

reservoirs, hydroelectric projects and associated canals, irrigation

dams, numerous pockets of cultivation and plantations, highways,

railway lines, mining and industrial development. Of late, elephant

deaths are on the rise. Irate farmers, terrified villages and the

even the military and police are reacting to crop depredation and

damage to people and settlements by fighting back and killing

elephants. Even though the elephant is protected by legislation

across Asia, they are increasingly being killed in anger or self

defence. Studies by Raman Sukumar in three locations in India

 23

suggested that up to 20% of elephant deaths were caused directly

by crop defence. These studies took place in 1982 and the situation

is thought to have worsened since. In Sri Lanka, it is reported that

up to 150 wild elephants are shot or poisoned by farmers every

year.

E. Because Elephant mortality due to collision with trains is another

issue of human conflict in India that has only increased despite

several protected forest areas in the country.

F. Because the continual inaction on part of the Respondents who are

“State” under Article 12 of the Constitution is not taking any

concrete steps to protect the wild animals who are facing death on

the railway track. Any law, policy, guidelines etc need to taken

urgently. This Hon’ble Court in exercise of power vested under

Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India has the

power to issue guidelines and order for strict conplience to save the

innocent animal from extinction. Since the said guidelines shall

have the force of law in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of

India.

G. Because this Hon’ble Court in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti

Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534, at page 567 pr 49

stated as under :
 24

“49. Article 48-A deals with “environment, forests and wildlife”.

These three subjects have been dealt with in one article for the
simple reason that the three are interrelated. Protection and
improvement of environment is necessary for safeguarding forests
and wildlife, which in turn protect and improve the environment.
Forests and wildlife are clearly interrelated and interdependent.
They protect each other.”

G. Because this Hon’ble Court has held in Intellectuals Forum,

Tirupathi v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549, at page 572 has held

as under :

“67. The responsibility of the State to protect the environment is

now a well-accepted notion in all countries. It is this notion that, in
international law, gave rise to the principle of “State responsibility”
for pollution emanating within one's own territories (Corfu Channel
case). This responsibility is clearly enunciated in the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972
(Stockholm Convention), to which India was a party. The relevant
clause of this declaration in the present context is para 2, which
states.

“The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land,
flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural
ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and
future generations through careful planning or management, as
appropriate.”

H. Because the doctrine of sustainable development has been

accepted as a well recognized law in India as held by this Hon’ble

Court in a catena of judgment as under:

In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC

549, at page 573 :

 25

“68. The respondents, however, have taken the plea that the
actions taken by the Government were in pursuance of urgent
needs of development. The debate between the developmental and
economic needs and that of the environment is an enduring one,
since if the environment is destroyed for any purpose without a
compelling developmental cause, it will most probably run foul of
the executive and judicial safeguards. However, this Court has
often faced situations where the needs of environmental protection
have been pitched against the demands of economic development.
In response to this difficulty, policy-makers and judicial bodies
across the world have produced the concept of “sustainable
development”. This concept, as defined in the 1987 report of the
World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland
Report) defines it as “Development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of the future generations
to meet their own needs.” Returning to the Stockholm Convention,
a support of such a notion can be found in para 13, which states:
“In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and
thus to improve the environment, States should adopt an
integrated and coordinated approach to their development planning
so as to ensure that development is compatible with the need to
protect and improve environment for the benefit of their
population.”
69. Subsequently the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, passed during the Earth Summit in 1992, to which
also India is a party, adopted the notion of sustainable
development. Principle 4 of the declaration states:
“In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental
protection shall constitute an integral part of the development
process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.”
70. This Court in Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti was pleased
to expound on this. Their Lordships held: (SCC p. 406, para 27)
“27. This, therefore, is the [sole] aim, namely, to balance economic
and social needs on the one hand with environmental
considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an
environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and
 26

the rapid increase in the population together with consequential

demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of
open lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up of lakes and
pollution of water resources and the very air which we breathe.
However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between
development on the one hand and the environment on the other.
The objective of all laws on environment should be to create
harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at
the altar of the other.”
71. A similar view was taken by this Court in Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (SCC p. 296, para 31) where
Their Lordships said:
“While economic development should not be allowed to take place
at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment
destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to
preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic
and other developments. Both development and environment must
go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development
at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be
development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of
environment.”
72. The concept of sustainable development also finds support in
the decisions of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj
Trapezium case), State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Productsand
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India.
73. In the light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that
merely asserting an intention for development will not be enough
to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources. What this
Court should follow is a principle of sustainable development and
find a balance between the developmental needs which the
respondents assert, and the environmental degradation, that the
appellant alleges.”

I. Because this Hon’ble Court has in Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v.

State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549, at page 578 held as under:

 27

“85. Parliament has considerably responded to the call of the

nations for conservation of environment and natural resources and
enacted suitable laws.
86. The judicial wing of the country, more particularly this Court,
has laid down a plethora of decisions asserting the need for
environmental protection and conservation of natural resources.
The environmental protection and conservation of natural
resources has been given a status of a fundamental right and
brought under Article 21 of the Constitution. This apart, the
directive principles of State policy as also the fundamental duties
enshrined in Part IV and Part IV-A of the Constitution respectively
also stress the need to protect and improve the natural
environment including the forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to
have compassion for living creatures.
87. This Court in Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group v.
Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. held (at SCC p. 541,
para 2) that the Government concerned should

“consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of

the conditions of living of the people on the one hand and the
necessity for preservation of social and ecological balances,
avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the
atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light
of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought
to its notice by various bodies of laymen, experts and public
workers and strike a just balance between these two conflicting
objectives”.”

J. Because in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 10 SCC

604, at page 607 this Hon’ble court has considered the issue of

importance of preservation of wildlife for the human society :

“8. Before dealing with the facts of this case, we may consider why
preservation of wildlife is important for human society.
9. Preservation of wildlife is important for maintaining the
ecological balance in the environment and sustaining the ecological
 28

chain. It must be understood that there is interlinking in nature. To

give an example, snakes eat frogs, frogs eat insects and insects
eat other insects and vegetation. If we kill all the snakes, the result
will be that the number of frogs will increase and this will result in
the frogs eating more of the insects and when more insects are
eaten, then the insects which are the prey of other insects will
increase in number to a disproportionate extent, or the vegetation
will increase to a disproportionate extent. This will upset the
delicate ecological balance in nature. If we kill the frogs the insects
will increase and this will require more insecticides. Use of much
insecticide may create health problems. To give another example,
destruction of dholes (wild dogs) in Bhutan was intended to protect
livestock, but this led to a greater number of wild boar and to
resultant crop devastation causing several cases of abandonment
by humans of agricultural fields. Destruction of carnivorous animals
will result in increase of herbivorous animals, and this can result in
serious loss of agricultural crops and other vegetation.
10. It must be realised that our scientific understanding of nature,
and in particular of the ecological chain and the linkages therein is
still very primitive, incomplete and fragmentary. Hence, it is all the
more important today that we preserve the ecological balance
because disturbing it may cause serious repercussions of which we
may have no idea today.
11. As already stated above, the wildlife in India has already been
considerably destroyed. At one time there were hundreds of
thousands of tigers, leopards and other wild animals, but today
there are only about 1400 tigers left, according to the Wildlife
Institute of India.”

K. Because this Hon’ble Court has in T.N Godavarman Thirumalpad v.

UOI (2009) 17 SCC 776 taken cognizance of the construction of

roads passing through wildlife sanctuary and cleared the project

subject to certain conditions. The Petitioner submits that in the

instant case similar conditions be imposed on the Railways, Union

 29

of India and States for the preservation and protection of the

elephants crossing railways tracks.

38. That the Petitioner does not have any alternative and efficacious

remedy for enforcement of his fundamental rights.

39. That the Petitioner has not filed any other petition in this Hon’ble

Court or any other Court.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully, prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may graciously be please to:

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or

direction directing respondents 1, 2 and 3 to initiate appropriate

steps forthwith to prevent such train accidents killing elephants

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or

direction directing respondents 1, 2, and 3 to initiate appropriate

action and pass necessary directions to prevent such sad accidents

claiming the elephants’ life.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or

direction directing the respondents and the concerned authorities

under them to take such measures so as to develop and enforce

such procedures and mechanisms to comply with the safety and

protection of the elephants.

 30

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order and

direction laying down guidelines, with respect to prevention of

mishaps leading to death of elephants, to Indian Railways as an

interim measure pending framing of any law by the Respondents

who are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution

of India;

e) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or

direction directing the respondent No. 3 to initiate prosecutions

under the Indian Penal Code, 1872, the Criminal Procedure Code,

the Wild life Protection Act, 1972, against the Officers and

responsible persons of respondents 1 and 2 for allowing such

accidents to take place.

f) Issue such other appropriate writ or direction that may be deemed

to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case

and in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn by Filed by

Samjeeb Panigrahi Purusahottam Sharma Tripathi

Drawn on: __.01.2013 ADVOCATE for the Petitioner

Filed On: __.01.2013

Place : New Delhi

 31

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHAKTI PRASAD NAYAK PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Shakti Prasad Nayak, S/o Late Gouranga Charan Nayak,

Age about 35 years, resident of Room No- 15, Plot no- F-88-B,C/o

Iswar Singh, PS- Vasant Vihar,Po- Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016

do solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the petitioner in the above mentioned Writ Petition and

as such am fully conversant with the facts of the case and

competent to swear this affidavit

2. That I have read the accompanying Synopsis and List of Dates

(pages B- ), Writ Petition (pages 1 to 30, paras 1 to 39 )

and the same have been drafted as per my instructions and I

believe the same to be true to the best of my knowledge and

belief.

3. That the annexures accompanying this Writ Petition are true and

correct copies of their respective originals.

4. That I have not filed any other petition in this Hon’ble Court or

before the Supreme Court or any other Court.

DEPONENT
 32

VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of

this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and

belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this day of January, 2013

DEPONENT