A plea seeking directions to implement safety measures in zoological parks in the country to deal with in any untoward incidents and emergency situations was filed in the Delhi high court Thursday.
The PIL came two days after a 20-year-old youth was mauled to death by a white tiger in Delhi zoo Tuesday. The victim, Maqsood from Anand Parbat in central Delhi apparently crossed the stand-off barrier and “jumped” into the enclosure.
The public interest litigation was filed by advocate Sunil Kumar, who said he was concerned over the safety of the people visiting zoological parks across the country. It said zoos in Singapore and US have alarm and collapsible ladders that can immediately help a person out, but the Delhi zoo does not have adequate wiring systems. “Had there been adequate measures in Delhi zoo, the life of Maqsood could have been saved,” said the plea.
Zoological parks house many endangered species, many of them are ferocious by nature, which calls for and rather makes it more important to equip them with speedy and effective ways of preparedness, it said.
The plea noted that the Delhi zoo does not have any arrangement for tranquilizer guns at the spot, and had there been proper arrangement for such shots with guards, the incident could have been very well avoided and a life of a youth could have been saved.
“There is only one guard on each of the 20 zoo beats. This number is alarming, because one guard cannot be expected to control and guard so many visitors and moreover in case of emergency, one guard will find himself in a difficult position to control such a situation. There must be more guards deployed on each beat,” the PIL stated. It also noted that the fencing was not appropriately tall to avoid any kind of attempt to cross or jump over the barriers. Authorities have failed to inst all proper and sufficient fencing around the beats of ferocious animals in such a way to make it difficult for any visitor to jump over the fences, it added.
The PIL also noted that there is no strict enforcement against the erring visitors in zoos here. “There is no safety awareness session for visitors before they enter into the zoos,” the plea said, seeking a direction to the central government and the Central Zoo Authority to assess safety conditions in zoos in the country and suggest measures to tackle emergency situations.
Comments
You title your article-"After tiger did what tigers do...". The heading, in the contextual background would read "After the tiger grabbed its prey by his neck, dragged him along and killed him in the process...."
A human being has been killed in this fashion. Regardless of whether this was due to the person's own mistake or due to lack of adequate preventive measures available in the zoo, the fact that a human life has been lost in such a tragic manner, is unlikely to escape your sense of shock, unless of course if you happen to be Kian, who is more busy trying to create sarcastic and eye-catchy stories.
Of course a tiger attacks and kills. That is its instinct. But a human being's instinctive reaction, to a such an incident, I thought, would be that of deep shock and empathy. Your post, definitely is disrespectful to the life that has been so lost. But, you still need an explanation, don't you?
The headline was intended more as a commentary on the PIL and zoos, in that "a wild predator kept in captivity, kills someone who jumps into its enclosure" shouldn't be news to anyone much more than "dog bites man" is. Sure, it's tragic, and sad, and newspapers columns can and will be handwringing and dissecting and commentating for the next week about how tragic and sad it all is, but since we're a legal portal, mulling on tragedy isn't really our remit.
The question I was trying raise in the headline, perhaps clumsily, is whether this really is a subject matter that the courts should be looking at via a PIL (although since the media can't get enough of the story, the court no doubt will have its bit to say), without seemingly even the victim's family involvement as a tort claim.
In the US, of course, ambulance chasers would have been all over this case as soon as it happened. The parallels are interesting, I think.
Obviously, such incidences also take place in so called foreign Zoos wherein it is not uncommon that humans entering into tigers territory by mistake or as an adventure or under influence of drugs. However, they have safeguards like high force water pipes to keep such animals away till the time life of person is saved. It is sad that Delhi Zoo had no such basic facilities and no action was taken for 15 minutes.
On another note, it really is a little surprising what PILs are filed about sometimes. The petitioner in this case could have just as well written a letter to the zoo director, or met them in private to discuss better security measures, but no, because they're a lawyer, it's much easier and quicker for him to just fire off a PIL about zoos needing to buy tranq-rifles and have full time guards to subdue animals, presumably before even bothering to contact the zoo about the situation. Sure, retractable ladders are a good idea, but is a PIL required to effect that change?
No wonder the courts are clogged.
On a serious note, it is unfortunate that people are blaming the tiger/the mentally unsound person. Tigers are not meant for the zoo, and a mentally unsound person doesn't deserve to die as has been made out by a lot of mainstream media.
Delhi zoo, apparently, 40 (or 200 for firangs and extra for cameras):
http://nzpnewdelhi.gov.in/timing_tariff.htm
According to the report, the PIL is also seeking Rs 25 lakh compensation to the victim's family.
IANS:
[quote]The Delhi High Court Friday issued notice to the city police, Delhi Zoo and Central Zoo Authority on a PIL asking to ensure the safety and security of the visitors to the National Zoological Park, days after a youth was mauled to death by a tiger there. [...]
A division bench of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S Endlaw sought response from police, Delhi and central zoo authorities by Oct 29.
The PIL filed by advocate Avadh Kaushik asked the court to direct the authorities to take steps and measures so that no such incident may be repeated in future. It asked direction for them to put all the contingent and emergent equipments in place in the National Zoological Park here in order to rescue the people under such circumstances.
It said that Maqsood's life been lost just because the authorities upon whom the responsibility to protect and care the zoo have failed to discharge their duties and they have no emergency or contingency plans to rescue the people from such untoward incident.
"It is a classic case of criminal negligency and it could be very well assessed as to who is responsible for the unfortunate incident but police have registered a case of death by negligence against some unknown persons and it is apprehended that like many other cases, ultimately this case would also be closed without ensuring any action and steps for avoiding such incident in future," the plea said.
It added that the incident also reveals as to how unsafe the public is who visits to such places and it is also clear that the guidelines prescribed by Central Zoo Authority are not being followed by the National Zoological Park.
The authorities concerned have been "criminally negligent and delinquent" and hence the responsibility has to be fixed, the plea added. It also sought compensation of Rs.25 lakh for the family of the victim. [/quote]