Wildlife conservationist files PIL in HC for violation of multiple rules at Pilikula Biological Park
Mangaluru: A wildlife conservationist has filed public interest litigation (PIL) in the Karnataka High Court alleging serious violation of several rules at the Pilikula Biological Park and asking for immediate probe and action by the authorities concerned.
The petitioner Bhuvan M, who is also a member of the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), among other wildlife organizations, and High Court advocate Ashwin Joyston Kutinha, conducted an independent survey of the park at Pilikula on Oct 31, 2024. The findings of the survey are learned to have brought to light multiple breaches of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009 at the park, reports Times of India.
The conservationist, speaking on the issue, has alleged that the enclosures for the animals were unsafe and deteriorating in condition, with the barriers being rusted and damaged. He pointed out that the condition of the enclosures posed serious risks to the animals inside. The survey further found that fishing nets were being used as barriers, which was a hazardous and also unauthorized arrangement. The Central Zoo Authority has mandated minimum size requirements to be used for enclosures but the management at Pilikula has failed to follow the rule, Bhuvan said.
Speaking about care of the animals at the biological park, the conservationist has said that the survey found veterinary care to be substandard as the administration failed to follow the government rules. The animals lived in highly unhygienic conditions with the water used being contaminated.
Bhuvan has further alleged that the unauthorized acquisition and release of animals was a violation of Central Zoo Authority guidelines.
Stating that multiple RTI applications were filed by him on the above issues, the conservationist accused the concerned authorities of attempting to suppress the truth regarding the condition at the biological park through delays in response to the applications. He also said that the matter would be escalated by submitting a detailed representation to the Central Zoo Authority, the chief wildlife warden, the principal chief conservator of forests and the commissioner, Pilikula Development Authority on February 24.
He has demanded action against the concerned government officials and transfer of the management of the Pilikula Biological Park to ensure the wellbeing of animals.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Opposition plans to move fresh notice seeking removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar
New Delhi (PTI): Undeterred by the rejection of their earlier notices, opposition parties are planning a fresh move to seek the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, sources said on Saturday.
According to highly placed sources, leaders from several opposition parties are in talks, and at least five senior MPs from different parties -- including the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the DMK -- are working on drafting a new notice to initiate removal proceedings.
It has, however, not yet been decided which House the notice would be moved in, or whether it would be introduced in both Houses as was done last time, the source added.
Buoyed by the defeat of The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha on Friday, opposition leaders are aiming to secure more MPs' signatures on the notice and are looking at garnering at least 200, the source said.
"We want to make a statement. We first need to prove that the number last time was underestimated," the source added.
In its earlier notices, the opposition had accused CEC Kumar of a "failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity" and of acting under the "thumb of the executive".
The notices levelled sweeping charges against the CEC, alleging “proved misbehaviour” on grounds including a compromised and executive-influenced appointment, partisan functioning -- such as the alleged “graded response” doctrine targeting opposition leaders -- obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and erosion of transparency through refusal to share data and materials.
They further accused him of enabling large-scale disenfranchisement via Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in Bihar and elsewhere, defying or delaying compliance with Supreme Court directions, and acting in alignment with the political executive, thereby undermining the independence of the Election Commission.
However, in almost similar responses, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejected the notices, holding that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for removal.
They reasoned that appointment-related issues or prior government service do not constitute misconduct; differences in public statements or administrative decisions lack evidence of wilful abuse of authority; and actions like data-sharing or electoral roll revisions fall within the commission’s constitutional mandate and are subject to judicial review.
The responses also stressed that many issues cited were either speculative, politically interpretative, or sub judice, and that removal proceedings cannot be based on disagreement or perceived political consequences but require clear, specific, and provable misconduct, which, they concluded, was absent in this case.
