Category: Legal

BENGALURU (2 March 2026) — The Karnataka High Court has extended the interim protection granted to Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh until March 9, 2026. The actor is facing legal action for allegedly mocking a sacred regional deity while mimicking Rishab Shetty’s character from the film Kantara: Chapter 1.

---

Court Proceedings and Travel Disruptions

The hearing, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, addressed Singh’s inability to appear in person as previously directed.

• Flight Delays: Senior advocate Sajan Poovayya, representing Singh, informed the court that the actor was unable to fly back to India due to widespread flight cancellations and airspace closures in the Middle East/West Asia region.
• Cooperation with Probe: The state prosecution noted that while Singh had responded to police notices, he had requested more time to join the investigation.
• Extension of Stay: Considering the logistical constraints, the court adjourned the matter for one week and reiterated that no coercive action (such as arrest) should be taken against the actor, provided he continues to cooperate with the High Grounds police.

The “Female Ghost” Controversy

The case stems from an incident at the 56th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa in November 2025.

• The Act: While praising Rishab Shetty’s performance, Singh allegedly mimicked the expressions of the deity Chavunda (or Chamundi) and referred to the figure as a “female ghost”.
• The Complaint: A Bengaluru-based advocate, Prashanth Methal, filed a private complaint alleging that the actor’s “crude and humorous” portrayal deeply hurt the religious sentiments of people in coastal Karnataka who worship these Daivas.
• The Charges: An FIR was registered under Sections 196 (promoting enmity), 299 (outraging religious feelings), and 302 (public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Judicial Observations on Celebrity Responsibility

During earlier hearings on February 24, Justice Nagaprasanna issued a sharp rebuke to the actor regarding the permanence of public statements.

“You may be Ranveer Singh, you may be anybody… you cannot be loose-tongued. Superstar is not ‘oopar’ (above) the law, sir. You have apologized, but will your apology take back all the words? The internet never forgets.” — Justice M. Nagaprasanna

The court acknowledged Singh’s apology and his claim of “gross ignorance” rather than malicious intent, but emphasized that regional traditions must be respected by public figures who wield significant influence.

---

Sources

• The Times of India: “Karnataka high court extends interim protection to Ranveer Singh till March 9” (3 March 2026)
• Deccan Herald: “‘Kantara’ mimicry case: Karnataka High Court extends interim relief to Ranveer Singh till March 9” (2 March 2026)
• Live Mint: “Karnataka HC grants interim relief to actor in local deity mockery row; warns, ‘You could be Ranveer Singh or anyone…’” (24 February 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Kantara mimicking case: HC extends interim relief given to actor Ranveer Singh till March 9” (2 March 2026)

KOCHI (2 March 2026) — Coming down heavily on the state administration following a series of fatal elephant attacks, the Kerala High Court on Monday directed the Chief Secretary to submit a comprehensive, time-bound roadmap to address human-wildlife conflict. A Division Bench comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian summoned the state’s top bureaucrats, observing that “every loss of life represents a failure of governance.”

---

Judicial Rebuke Following Aralam Fatality

The court’s intervention was triggered by the tragic death of Aneesh A.S. (40), a resident of the Aralam Tribal Rehabilitation and Development Mission (TRDM) area, who was trampled by a wild elephant on Friday. The bench expressed deep dissatisfaction that such an incident occurred in a region already under judicial monitoring.

“If this is the fate of hapless tribal residents in an area being monitored by this court, one shudders to think about the fate of residents in other conflict areas which are not under judicial surveillance.” — Kerala High Court

Requirements for the New Roadmap

The court has mandated that the Chief Secretary coordinate across all departments—Forest, SC/ST Development, Revenue, and Disaster Management—to produce a structured action plan by March 12, 2026.

The roadmap must include:

• Robust Defense Mechanisms: Specific proposals for the construction of elephant-proof walls and the installation of hanging solar fences around the TRDM area in Aralam and high-conflict zones in Wayanad.
• Defined Timelines: A clear schedule for when these physical barriers will be completed.
• Inter-Departmental Synergy: Measures to resolve the “bureaucratic roadblocks” that arise because farms, tribal missions, and forests fall under different administrative heads.
• Utilization of Disaster Funds: Since the state has declared human-wildlife conflict a “state-specific natural disaster,” the court instructed the government to utilize allocations available under the Disaster Management Act for these urgent projects.

Immediate Relief for Aralam Residents

Beyond physical security, the court addressed the “deplorable” living conditions in the Aralam farm area:

• Drinking Water: The court noted a Government Order (GO) dated February 10, 2026, for the supply of water via tanker lorries. The Chief Secretary must report on the progress of this supply and the restoration of the Jalanidhi infrastructure.
• Zero Compensation Drive: The court noted the Forest Minister’s recent announcement to clear all pending wildlife conflict compensation claims by March 31, 2026, but insisted that financial relief is not a substitute for the protection of life under Article 21.

Current Context: The “State-Specific Disaster”

Kerala is currently witnessing a significant spike in wildlife incursions. While snakebite fatalities have decreased by nearly 85% over the last decade, elephant and tiger attacks in Wayanad and Aralam remain a critical threat. The state currently operates 28 Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) and has deployed nearly 4,000 volunteers across 171 high-risk panchayats to manage the crisis.

---

Sources

• Live Law: “Kerala High Court Directs Chief Secretary To File Comprehensive Roadmap…” (2 March 2026)
• The Hindu: “HC raps State after tribal resident killed by wild elephant in Aralam…” (28 February 2026)
• Times of India: “Explain steps being taken to tackle human-wildlife conflict: Kerala HC to chief secy” (2 March 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Kerala HC seeks roadmap from state to tackle human-wildlife conflict…” (2 March 2026)
• Onmanorama: “12 major conflict zones identified: Forest dept report” (9 February 2026)

NEW DELHI (2 March 2026) — The Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognisance of a disturbing trend where a trial court relied on non-existent, AI-generated “fake” legal precedents to decide a case. A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe categorically stated that basing a judicial decision on fabricated judgments is not a mere “error of judgment” but constitutes professional misconduct.

---

Origin of the Controversy: Hallucinated Citations

The issue emerged during the hearing of a special leave petition challenging a January order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The underlying matter involved a property injunction suit where the trial court had dismissed objections to an Advocate Commissioner’s report.

To justify its August 2025 order, the trial court cited several case laws that appeared legitimate but were later found to be “synthetic” or “hallucinated” by AI tools. The non-existent cases included:

1. Subramani v. M. Natarajan (2013) 14 SCC 95
2. Ramasamy (1071) 2 SCC 68
3. Chidambaram Pillai v. SAL Lakshmi Devi v. K. Prabha (2006) 5 SCC 551
4. Gajanan v. Ramdas (2015) 6 SCC 223

While the Andhra Pradesh High Court had noted the “AI-generated” nature of these citations and issued a word of caution, it had still affirmed the trial court’s decision on its merits. The Supreme Court, however, has stayed the trial court’s proceedings based on the Advocate Commissioner’s report, citing “considerable institutional concern.”

Institutional Accountability and Misconduct

The apex court emphasized that the integrity of the adjudicatory process is at stake when “fake or synthetic” judgments are deployed by the bench.

“At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision making. It would be a misconduct and legal consequence shall follow,” the Court stated in its February 27 order.

To examine the broader consequences and fix accountability, the Court has:

• Issued Notices: To the Attorney General for India (R. Venkataramani), the Solicitor General (Tushar Mehta), and the Bar Council of India (BCI).
• Appointed Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Shyam Divan has been appointed to assist the court in establishing guidelines for AI use in the judiciary.

The “Mercy vs Mankind” Precedent

This is not an isolated incident. On February 17, another bench led by CJI Surya Kant expressed alarm over lawyers filing petitions drafted with AI tools that included phantom citations like “Mercy vs Mankind”. The Chief Justice warned that while AI can augment research, “human oversight is non-negotiable” and the judge or lawyer must remains the final arbiter of truth.

The Supreme Court is now set to determine if stricter disciplinary rules are required for both the Bar and the Bench regarding the unverified use of Generative AI. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on March 10, 2026.

---

Sources

• The Hindu: “Supreme Court takes cognisance of trial court relying on AI-generated ‘fake’ verdicts” (2 March 2026)
• Bar and Bench: “Judges citing fake AI-generated case laws amounts to misconduct: Supreme Court” (2 March 2026)
• Hindustan Times: “SC takes cognisance of trial court relying on AI-generated ‘fake’ verdicts” (2 March 2026)
• LawBeat: “Trial Court Uses AI-made Judgments; SC Says ‘Misconduct, Legal Consequence Shall Follow’” (2 March 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “SC slams lawyers for using AI, warns against fake judgments” (17 February 2026)

NEW DELHI (March 2, 2026) — A Delhi court has granted bail to nine members of the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) who were arrested following a “shirtless” protest at the India AI Impact Summit last month. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Ravi of the Patiala House Court characterized the demonstration as a “symbolic political critique,” observing that incarceration in this context could amount to pre-emptive punishment before a trial.

---

Judicial Observations on Political Dissent

In a detailed order passed on Sunday, the court underscored the distinction between criminal intent and democratic expression. The magistrate noted that the protest was transient and did not lead to any lasting harm or public panic.

“The protest, at highest, constituted symbolic political critique during a public event: T-shirts with leadership imagery, non-inciteful slogans bereft of communal/regional taint, and transient assembly. No evidence discloses property defacement, or delegate panic; exit was orderly via escort.”

The court further remarked that pre-trial detention, when not strictly necessary for investigation, is a “profound aberration” of criminal jurisprudence, which prioritizes personal liberty.

Details of the Incident and Arrests

The incident occurred on February 20, 2026, at Bharat Mandapam during the high-profile AI summit.

• The Protest: IYC workers entered the venue wearing jackets, which they later removed to reveal white T-shirts. These shirts featured images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump, alongside slogans like “PM is compromised” and criticisms of the India-US trade deal.
• Police Allegations: The Delhi Police opposed the bail, arguing that the activists had disrupted an international event, raised “anti-national” slogans, and assaulted police personnel. They claimed the protest was a planned conspiracy to tarnish the country’s global image.
• The Accused: The nine individuals granted bail are Krishna Hari, Narshimha Yadav, Kundan Kumar Yadav, Ajay Kumar Singh, Jitendra Singh Yadav, Raja Gurjar, Ajay Kumar Vimal (alias Bantu), Saurabh Singh, and Arbaz Khan.

Broader Legal Context

This ruling follows the recent release of IYC National President Uday Bhanu Chib, who was previously described by police as the “mastermind” of the protest. In total, 14 people have been arrested in connection with the case. While nine were granted relief on Sunday, at least five others remain in custody as the investigation into the alleged “larger conspiracy” continues.

The court has imposed standard bail conditions, including the furnishing of surety bonds and a requirement that the accused cooperate with ongoing police inquiries.

---

Sources

• National Herald: “Delhi court grants bail to 9 IYC workers in AI Summit protest case” (2 March 2026)
• Live Law: “AI Summit Protest: Delhi Court Grants Bail To 9 IYC Workers; Says Protest Was ‘Political Critique’” (2 March 2026)
• The Hindu: “AI Summit Protest: Delhi court grants bail to IYC president Chib” (28 February 2026)
• Bar and Bench: “Youth Congress protest at AI Summit was political dissent: Delhi court grants bail to 9” (2 March 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Symbolic political critique: Delhi court grants bail to 9 IYC workers…” (2 March 2026)

KOLLAM (2 March 2026) — The Kollam Vigilance Court has dismissed the bail petitions of KP Sankara Das, a former member of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), in connection with two high-profile cases involving the misappropriation of gold from the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple. Judge Mohit CS rejected the pleas on Monday after reviewing medical reports, stating that the health grounds cited by the defense did not warrant release at this stage of the investigation.

---

Allegations of Sacramental Misappropriation

The cases involve the alleged loss of sacred gold-clad artefacts that were removed from the shrine for replating work in 2019. Sankara Das, a senior leader of the CPI, is a key figure in the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe.

• Case 1 (Dwarapalaka Idols): Sankara Das is listed as the 15th accused regarding the suspected loss of gold from the guardian deity idols.
• Case 2 (Sreekovil Doorframes): He is the 11th accused in the case involving missing gold from the sanctum sanctorum door panels.

The SIT alleges that during his tenure on the board, gold ornaments and plates were handed over to the prime accused, Unnikrishnan Potty, for replating. However, subsequent audits and scientific analysis revealed significant “missing weight” and inconsistencies in the records, which originally mislabelled gold-clad panels as “copper plates.”

Arrest and Legal Proceedings

Sankara Das was arrested on 14 January 2026 while undergoing treatment at a private hospital in Thiruvananthapuram. His arrest followed sharp criticism from the Kerala High Court regarding delays in the investigation.

• Medical Review: The court had previously ordered a medical board to assess whether his treatment could continue in jail or a government hospital.
• Bail Arguments: His counsel, Advocate G Mohanraj, argued for bail citing deteriorating health, but the Vigilance Court upheld the prosecution’s need for continued custody.

Wider Investigation and Chargesheet Timeline

The Sabarimala gold heist has evolved into a massive probe involving 12 arrests so far, including:

• Unnikrishnan Potty (Prime Accused): The jeweller entrusted with the work (currently out on bail in one case).
• Kandararu Rajeevaru (Chief Priest/Tantri): Arrested in January 2026 for allegedly recommending the replating despite ritualistic violations.
• Enforcement Directorate (ED): The ED has registered a separate money-laundering case, conducting raids across Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka to trace the “proceeds of crime.”

The SIT has informed the Kerala High Court that it intends to file the final chargesheet in both cases before 31 March 2026.

---

Sources

• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Former TDB member’s bail plea rejected in Sabarimala gold loss cases” (2 March 2026)
• The Times of India: “Sabarimala gold theft case: Kerala court rejects bail plea of former TDB member” (2 March 2026)
• Ommcom News: “ED Tightens Noose in Sabarimala Gold Heist; High Court Puts Former TDB Member Under Lens” (21 January 2026)
• The Hindu: “Former TDB official gets statutory bail in Sabarimala gold loss case” (27 February 2026)

LUCKNOW (1 March 2026) — The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the credibility of a First Information Report (FIR) cannot be dismissed or doubted simply because it was prepared with the assistance of a lawyer. A division bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary clarified that seeking legal aid is a permissible right at every stage of criminal proceedings, including the initial act of reporting a crime.

---

Key Judicial Observations

The ruling came during the hearing of a criminal appeal filed by Jagdamba Harijan, who was challenging his conviction in a decade-old acid attack case. The defense had argued that the FIR was unreliable because it was drafted by a private advocate and filed with a two-day delay.

The court rejected these contentions, noting:

• Access to Legal Aid: The bench observed that if legal assistance is allowed throughout a trial, there can be no “embargo” on seeking help from an advocate at the stage of lodging an FIR.
• Illiterate Informants: The court specifically noted that the complainant in this case was an “illiterate villager” who had just witnessed a horrific crime. It was deemed natural for such a person to seek assistance from a literate individual—even a lawyer—to ensure a clear narration of facts.
• Prioritising Treatment: Regarding the delay, the court held that prioritising the medical treatment of the victims was a natural and necessary response that should not be used to “jettison the evidence” of the prosecution.

Verdict: Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified

While the High Court upheld the conviction of Jagdamba Harijan for the 2014 acid attack that killed a mother and her daughter-in-law in Pratapgarh, it modified the trial court’s order.

Original Sentence (2018)	High Court Modification (2026)
Life Imprisonment	14 Years Rigorous Imprisonment
Fines & Other Charges	Maintained

The court showed leniency by reducing the life sentence to a fixed term of 14 years, citing the appellant’s lack of prior criminal history and the fact that he had already spent nearly 13 years and 10 months in custody (including remissions) as of late 2025.

Context of the Crime

The incident occurred in May 2014, when the appellant allegedly poured sulphuric acid on two women while they were sleeping. The medical and forensic evidence confirmed that the victims died from septicaemia caused by deep acid burns exceeding 50% of their bodies. The court affirmed that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges under Sections 304 (culpable homicide), 326A (acid attack), and 452 (house-trespass) of the IPC.

---

Sources

• Bar & Bench: “FIR’s credibility not affected merely because it was lodged with lawyer’s assistance: Allahabad HC” (28 February 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Preparation of FIR with lawyer’s help does not automatically affect its credibility…” (1 March 2026)
• The Times of India: “FIR drafted by a lawyer credible: Allahabad High Court” (2 March 2026)
• Verdictum: “Jagdamba Harijan v. State of UP: Neutral Citation 2026:AHC-LKO:11040” (February 2026)

NEW DELHI (1 March 2026) — To mark National Women’s Day and the birth anniversary of Sarojini Naidu, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has launched “Frames of Justice,” a nationwide reel and short film competition for law students. Under the leadership of Supreme Court Judge and NALSA Executive Chairman Vikram Nath, the initiative aims to leverage digital storytelling to promote legal literacy and highlight access-to-justice mechanisms for marginalized communities.

---

Competition Categories and Format

Recognising the power of short-form content, NALSA has opened two distinct categories for participation. All entries must be factually accurate and legally sound.

Category	Maximum Duration	Orientation
Reel / Vertical Video	90 Seconds	Vertical (9:16)
Short Film / Explainer	3 Minutes (180s)	Horizontal (16:9)

Key Guidelines for Participation

The competition is open to undergraduate and postgraduate law students across India. NALSA has established a strict institutional hierarchy for submissions to ensure quality and authenticity.

• Institutional Channel: Participants cannot submit directly to NALSA. Entries must be routed from the Law College → District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) → State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) → NALSA.
• Technical Standards: Videos must be in MP4 or MOV format with a minimum resolution of 1080p.
• Language: Entries in regional languages are encouraged but must include English subtitles embedded in the video.
• Originality: Any use of AI-generated content or plagiarism will result in immediate disqualification.

Zonal Prizes and Recognition

The competition is structured zonally (North, South, East, and West). Winners and runners-up from each zone will receive:

• First Prize: ₹10,000 and a Certificate of Recognition.
• Second Prize: ₹5,000 and a Certificate of Recognition.
• Felicitation: Winners will be invited to a formal ceremony to be awarded by senior dignitaries.
• Digital Outreach: Selected entries will be featured on NALSA’s official digital platforms to serve as permanent legal awareness tools.

Themes and Timeline

Submissions are being accepted between February and April 2026, with evaluation taking place shortly thereafter. Each zone has been allocated specific NALSA schemes to focus on, such as:

• Legal Services to Persons with Mental Illness (2024 Scheme)
• Child-Friendly Legal Services (2024 Scheme)
• Poverty Alleviation and Tribal Rights
• Compensation Schemes for Women and Victims of Crime

---

Sources

• National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): Official “Frames of Justice” Guidelines (February 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “NALSA launches nationwide youth film competition…” (1 March 2026)
• The Week: “NALSA launches reel making short film competition for law students” (1 March 2026)
• District Legal Services Authority (DLSA): Zonal Thematic Allocation Circular (16 February 2026)

IDUKKI (27 February 2026) — A 25-year-old man from Tamil Nadu has been sentenced to a cumulative 30 years of imprisonment by a Kerala court for the sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl in 2022. The Idukki Painavu Fast Track Special Court found the accused, Muhammad Riyas, guilty of luring the minor to a cinema theatre in Tiruppur under the false pretext of offering her employment, where the assault subsequently took place.

---

Judicial Ruling and Sentencing Details

Judge Nobel D.S. delivered the verdict on Friday, convicting Riyas under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. While the cumulative total of the various sentences amounted to 30 years, the court clarified the actual duration of the incarceration.

According to Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Shijomon Joseph:

• Concurrent Sentencing: The convict will serve a maximum of 15 years in jail, as the court directed that all sentences must run concurrently.
• Financial Penalty: A fine of 1 lakh rupees was imposed on the convict.
• Victim Compensation: The court has recommended that the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) provide adequate compensation to the survivor for her rehabilitation.

Case Background and Investigation

The incident dates back to 2022, when the victim, a resident of Idukki district in Kerala, was approached by Riyas with the promise of a job.

• The Incident: The minor was taken to a theatre in Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, where she was subjected to sexual assault.
• Reporting: After returning to Idukki, the girl informed her family, leading to a complaint being lodged with the local police.
• Prosecution: The case was handled by the Idukki police, who coordinated with Tamil Nadu authorities to gather evidence and record the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.

The SPP noted that the prompt filing of the chargesheet and the consistent testimony provided by the survivor were instrumental in securing the conviction within the fast-track judicial framework.

---

Sources

• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Kerala court sentences TN native to 30 yrs imprisonment for sexual assault of girl” (27 February 2026)
• The Hindu: “Man sentenced to 15 years rigorous imprisonment for minor’s assault in Idukki” (27 February 2026)
• Mathrubhumi: “Tiruppur native convicted in Idukki POCSO case; 30 years cumulative sentence” (27 February 2026)
• Idukki District Police: Official Media Release – Case No. 422/2022 (February 2026)

NAINITAL (26 February 2026) — The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that candidates participating in a recruitment process cannot claim reservation benefits after the selection process has concluded if they failed to do so at the appropriate stage. A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari dismissed a petition challenging the recruitment of an Assistant Teacher (Primary), stating that a candidate who omits a reservation claim during the application phase cannot later complain of being deprived of those benefits.

---

Judicial Observations on Recruitment Protocol

The court’s decision was founded on the principle that the selection process must be governed by the parameters established in the initial advertisement. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari noted that the recruitment notification explicitly stated that horizontal reservation would be applicable according to government orders.

Key findings from the ruling include:

• Stage of Claim: Candidates must explicitly declare their eligibility for specific reserved categories during the initial application or selection phase.
• Direct Merit Comparison: The court ruled that the merit of a candidate appointed under a specific reserved category cannot be directly compared to that of a general category candidate.
• Administrative Finality: Allowing retrospective claims after the publication of a selection list would undermine the integrity and finality of public recruitment drives.

Case Background: Assistant Teacher Recruitment

The petitioner had challenged the selection list for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the science stream, which was published on 28 January 2026. The grievance focused on a candidate selected for Champawat district who had secured lower marks than the petitioner.

The State government clarified that the selected candidate had legitimately availed of the Statehood Activists Scheme. This scheme provides:

• 10 Percent Horizontal Reservation: Allocated in state services for Uttarakhand statehood activists and their dependents.
• Specific Eligibility: The respondent fulfilled the criteria and claimed the benefit at the outset of the process.

While the petitioner also claimed to belong to the statehood activist category, he had failed to declare this status in his application. Consequently, the court found no grounds to quash the selection list or the respondent’s appointment.

---

Sources

• The Week: “Reservation benefits cannot be claimed after completion of selection process Uttarakhand HC” (27 February 2026)
• Press Trust of India (PTI): “Uttarakhand High Court rules against post-facto reservation claims” (26 February 2026)
• Devdiscourse: “Uttarakhand HC Upholds Reservation Protocol in Teacher Selection” (27 February 2026)
• Uttarakhand High Court: Neutral Citation 2026 UHC 1009 / WPSS Case Records (February 2026)

PRAYAGRAJ (26 February 2026) — The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh state authorities to provide an immediate update on the measures taken under existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to mitigate the escalating “monkey menace.” A division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh issued the directive during a hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that highlighted the severe human-animal conflict in districts like Ghaziabad and Mathura.

---

Judicial Mandate and Administrative Delays

The court expressed a firm need for documented action, requiring the state to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken by district-level committees. This follows an earlier order from January 13, which had tasked the Environment, Forest, and Climate Change Department with drafting a comprehensive work plan.

Significant points from the hearing include:

• One-Year Timeline: Additional Advocate General Manish Goel submitted that a “scientific and systematic field survey” to assess the population of rhesus macaques and map conflict hotspots would require at least one year to complete.
• Immediate Measures: Until a new baseline is established, the state will rely on the existing SOP titled “Instructions Regarding the Capture, Transportation, and Release of Monkeys” and a tentative plan suggested by the Animal Welfare Board of India.
• High-Power Committee: A committee has already been constituted to oversee the survey and the implementation of management strategies.

Concerns Raised in the PIL

The petition, filed by Vineet Sharma and another Ghaziabad resident, paints a grim picture of urban and rural life disrupted by large groups of monkeys, sometimes numbering over 200.

The counsel for the petitioners, Akash Vashishtha and Pawan Tiwari, presented evidence of:

• Violent Attacks: Documented incidents across Kaushambi, Prayagraj, Sitapur, Bareilly, and Agra.
• Economic Loss: Widespread crop destruction and disruption of school activities.
• Animal Welfare: Rising hunger and starvation among the monkey populations due to shrinking natural habitats, leading to “inhuman conditions” for the animals.

Legal and Statutory Framework

The bench emphasized that municipal authorities cannot abdicate their responsibilities under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959. In previous sessions, the court had criticized the “blame-shifting” between departments, noting that while the problem is acknowledged by all, accountability has been scarce.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for April 6, 2026, by which time the state must apprise the bench of the specific actions undertaken in Ghaziabad and Mathura, alongside an action plan for the remaining districts.

---

Sources

• The Week: “Allahabad HC directs authorities to apprise it of measures taken to tackle monkey menace” (27 February 2026)
• Hindustan Times: “Need a year for plan on human monkey conflict: UP Govt tells High Court” (27 February 2026)
• Oneindia: “Monkey menace: Allahabad High Court seeks SOP action update for Ghaziabad and Mathura” (27 February 2026)
• Devdiscourse: “Court Demands Action on Monkey Menace in Ghaziabad and Mathura” (27 February 2026)