Karnataka High Court disposes of PIL on zoo staff safety after CZA forms committee
On Wednesday, the Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought safety protocols for zoo staff. The court made the decision after noting a submission from the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) stating that an expert committee has been formed to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for zoo personnel.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K S Hemalekha, disposed of the PIL after the counsel representing the CZA presented an office order dated May 5, 2026. This order set out the constitution of the expert committee and its terms of reference to establish safety guidelines.
The petition was filed by Bhuvan, a conservationist and herpetologist who is currently a resident of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, and his mother B Pudhpalatha, a resident of Mangaluru in Dakshina Kannada.
The petitioners highlighted a lack of safety measures, stating there are no specific safety protocols, risk assessment mechanisms, or SOPs governing how zoo personnel enter animal enclosures. They noted that these protocols are needed for daily operational duties, including feeding, treatment, and maintenance.
To highlight the safety gaps, the petitioners cited 17 past incidents reported in the media that involved grievous injuries and fatalities of zoo personnel.
Prior to filing the PIL, Bhuvan had filed a Right to Information (RTI) application with the CZA to seek certified copies of safety protocols, risk assessments, and SOPs. In April 2026, the CZA replied that no such safety protocol documents or SOPs had been issued for staff, veterinary personnel, or zookeepers entering animal enclosures. The CZA had stated that staff were instead directed to refer to general guidelines for the establishment of new zoos under section 38H(1A) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
During Wednesday's hearing, the counsel for the petitioners requested that the newly formed expert committee be directed to examine the 17 incidents of injuries and deaths cited in their representation.
In response, the bench observed that some of the incidents cited by the petitioners also showed a lack of common sense on the part of the personnel who entered the animal enclosures.
"You get into the tiger enclosure. It is common sense and you don’t need a protocol not to enter into a tiger enclosure. How can one restrain the animal?" the bench remarked orally.
However, the bench reiterated that proper protocols and SOPs are indeed necessary to prevent fatal attacks by wild animals.
