Bombay High Court declines to entertain PIL seeking compensation for victims of snake and scorpion bites

The Bombay High Court recently declined to entertained a public interest litigation (PIL) plea seeking financial aid to victims of snake and scorpion bites in Maharashtra [Vaibhav Padmakar Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..pdf]..A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne disposed of the PIL after pointing out that it is up to the State government to decide on such issues. ."It is for the State Government to consider the grievances put-forth by the Petitioner with regard to providing the compensation to the other persons who succumb due to snake bite. This Court would not direct the Government to make a policy in a particular manner as that would amount to encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the State Government conferred the Article 162 of the Constitution of India," the Court said. .The petition was filed by the secretary of an organisation, Nisarga Vidnyan Sanstha, whose members help in catching snakes and scorpions that entered human habitats. The petitioner raised concern over the plight of organisation members who get infected in the process of catching snakes and scorpions, as they are not provided with any financial aid by the State.He pointed out that there is already a compensation scheme in place, the Gopinath Mundhe Insurance Scheme, to grant financial aid to farmers and their blood relatives who suffers snake bites..It was argued that there was no reason why a benefit already being given to farmers since 2018 by the Maharashtra government could not be extended to other citizens who also risk their lives on account of snake bites. .The Court, however, reasoned that the grant of financial aid is a policy decision which the State government makes under Article 162 of the Constitution. Hence, the Court said that it cannot intervene in the issue..The High Court further pointed out that while framing the policy for granting financial aid to farmers and their family members, the government had viewed such farmers who succumb to snake bites as a different class. The farmers are the ones who work in fields, the Court observed.“The State Government under its wisdom has considered farmers to form a different class than the other citizens and the benevolent scheme has been floated for the farmers. The purpose of compensating farmers who succumb to snake bite is that they were already covered by the earlier government resolutions for compensation arising from death or injury caused by wild animals. Considering the welfare of the farmers, the decision has been taken to extend the benefit of compensation even for snake bite,” the Court explained..Hence, the Court declined to take up the issue. Advocate Anurag R Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner. The respondent-authorities were represented by Government Pleader PP Kakade and Additional Government Pleader MM Pabale..[Read Order]