UP seeks more time to frame policy on monkey menace, tells Allahabad high court

The explanation was given during a court case started by residents from Raj Nagar in Ghaziabad, who blamed growing monkey population to be causing conflicts between humans and monkeys

The Uttar Pradesh government has informed the Allahabad High Court that addressing the monkey menace requires a comprehensive policy decision involving multiple departments and more time for deliberation.

The state’s standing counsel submitted instructions from the joint secretary of the UP government, stating that a preliminary meeting had already been held with officials from the forest, environmental, and climate change departments and that the matter needed further coordination before a policy could be finalised.  (Sakib Ali/HT Photo)

The explanation was given on October 31 during a court case started by residents Vinit Sharma and Prajakta Singhal from Raj Nagar in Ghaziabad, who claimed that the rapidly growing monkey population in the area was causing more conflicts between humans and monkeys.

The state’s standing counsel submitted instructions from the joint secretary of the UP government, stating that a preliminary meeting had already been held with officials from the forest, environmental, and climate change departments and that the matter needed further coordination before a policy could be finalised.

However, the division bench headed by chief justice Arun Bhansali noted that the two-month period sought by the state was “substantially long”. The bench directed the respondents to treat the issue with “some priority” and granted four weeks to take the necessary steps.

Meanwhile, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), a respondent in the case, filed an affidavit clarifying that the responsibility for controlling the monkey population rests with local urban bodies, municipal corporations, municipal frameworks, and the district administration, and not with the Board.

During an earlier hearing on September 19, the court impugned the principal secretary of the state urban development department as respondent number 1A, directing the official to detail steps taken or proposed to ensure that local bodies fulfil their responsibilities under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959, and the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916.

In a rebuke, the court had observed that although “all respondents agree that the monkey menace does exist and is creating havoc with the lives of the public, none is prepared to take responsibility”, adding that “each department is seeking to shift the responsibility to another.”