Idukki collector defends night movement advisory as farmers demand withdrawal

Idukki District Collector Dineshan Cheruvatt has defended an order restricting night-time movement and plantation work in forest-border areas, saying it applies only to designated wildlife conflict hotspots and will not disrupt normal life across the district. The order directed plantation inspectors in Munnar, Peerumade and Udumbanchola to tell estate owners and workers to stop movement and operations inside plantations between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

The measure was issued to prevent attacks by wild animals. Mr Cheruvatt told the media on Wednesday that the instruction was an advisory communicated through plantation inspectors. He said there were no restrictions elsewhere in Idukki and accused social media groups of distorting the administration’s direction.

He also said a related instruction concerning unauthorised fences and structures applied only to encroachments on government land in hotspots identified by the Forest Department. Residents and people’s representatives had sought the removal of such obstructions after a tribal farmer died in a wild elephant attack near Chinnakkanal the previous week, he said. The restrictions have drawn opposition from farmer organisations and the Idukki diocese of the Syro-Malabar Church.

Fr Jins Karakkatt, director of the diocese’s media commission, said the overlap between human settlements and forest areas meant the administration should prevent animals from entering inhabited areas rather than restrict people’s movement. The CPI(M) and CPI have also criticised the directive and sought clarification on whether it was issued with the Chief Minister’s concurrence. Mathew Varghese of the All India Kisan Sabha called the decision unethical, while Kerala Independent Farmers Association chairperson Alex Ozhukayil said problematic animals should be captured and moved to deep forests.

The opponents argue that removing protective fences while limiting residents’ movement could expose people and farmland to greater risk. The Collector, however, maintained that the order was narrowly focused on identified conflict locations.