The significance of Madhya Pradesh’s snake study goes beyond forests and wildlife. The state is regarded as a high-burden region for snakebite, although official health data reflect only a portion of the actual burden.
The study could provide information about where medically important snakes occur, which habitats they use and where people are most likely to come into contact with them. That information could eventually help health authorities target prevention, treatment and emergency care more effectively.
But to understand what the study could achieve, it is important to look at the number of snake species in Madhya Pradesh, the scale of India’s snakebite problem, the gap between official figures and independent estimates, and what is known about snakebite deaths in the state. Here are some key details that explain why the initiative actually matters.
How many snake species are found in Madhya Pradesh?
The Madhya Pradesh State Biodiversity Board’s reptile database lists roughly 40 snake species, although taxonomy and species names have changed since some of those records were compiled.
There are nine venomous snake varieties in MP, including four traditionally recognised as the Big Four: the spectacled or Indian cobra (Naja naja), Russell’s viper (Daboia russelii), common krait (Bungarus caeruleus) and Indian saw-scaled viper (Echis carinatus).
India’s National Action Plan for Snakebite Envenoming recognises 23 medically important snake species, considerably more than the traditional Big Four.
Most snakes encountered in Madhya Pradesh are not medically dangerous to humans. They include rat snakes, wolf snakes, kukri snakes, keelbacks, vine snakes, racers, trinket snakes, sand boas, pythons, worm snakes and other burrowing species.
These snakes are nevertheless important to the ecosystem. Many eat rodents and therefore provide natural pest control, particularly in agricultural landscapes.
How serious is India’s snakebite problem?
India has a very large snakebite burden, but official health statistics have historically captured only part of it.
The National Health Profile recorded 164,031 snakebite cases and 885 deaths in 2018, compared with 158,650 cases and 1,060 deaths in 2017.
For 2019, provisional Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP) data recorded 220,872 cases.
The National Health Profile recorded 101,755 cases and 600 deaths in 2021, and 103,811 cases and 525 deaths in 2022.
More recent IDSP/Integrated Health Information Platform (IHIP) figures are different because reporting systems and coverage have changed. The Health Ministry reported 61,977 cases nationally in 2022, 72,367 in 2023 and a substantially higher number in 2024. Reported deaths increased from 183 in 2023 to 370 in 2024 and 431 in 2025.
These figures should not be read as evidence that India has only a few hundred snakebite deaths a year.
Why are the official numbers much lower than some estimates of snakebite deaths?
A major population-based mortality study estimated that about 1.2 million people died from snakebite in India between 2000 and 2019 — an average of roughly 58,000 deaths a year.
The study estimated that about 70% of deaths occurred in eight high-burden states and that roughly half occurred during the rainy season.
The huge difference between such estimates and routine government reporting points to a basic problem: India does not yet have a complete system for recording every snakebite and snakebite death.
Many bites occur in rural areas, and not every victim reaches a hospital. Deaths outside formal health facilities may also go unrecorded in routine health data.
Which parts of India face the greatest snakebite risk?
The highest burden is broadly concentrated in rural, agricultural and low-altitude areas of central, northern, eastern and parts of southern India.
National mortality research has identified Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh among the major high-burden states. Together, they accounted for about 70% of estimated snakebite deaths.
The reasons are fairly consistent: intensive agriculture, rodent-rich fields, barefoot agricultural work, houses that allow snakes to enter, sleeping on floors, monsoon flooding and long distances to appropriate medical care.
Recent surveillance has also shown high reported caseloads in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Odisha, Maharashtra and Karnataka. But higher reporting does not necessarily mean a higher underlying burden. States with stronger surveillance may appear to have more cases because they record them more completely.
Karnataka is an important example. After snakebite was made a notifiable disease, reported cases increased sharply. That rise partly reflects better reporting rather than necessarily a sudden increase in snake populations.
How serious is the problem in Madhya Pradesh?
Madhya Pradesh is considered a high-burden snakebite state despite the inadequacy of official health data.
According to MP State Wildlife Board member, Dr Mukesh Ingle, the 17snakebite hot-spots in Madhya Pradesh, include parts of Alirajpur, Barwani, Balaghat, Betul, Chhatarpur, Chhindwara, Damoh, Dhar, Jhabua, Mandla, Panna, Sagar, Satna, Seoni, Katni and Singrauli.
A peer-reviewed study examining Madhya Pradesh government data for April 2020-March 2022 found 5,779 compensated snakebite deaths, with approximately ₹231.16 crore paid as compensation. The largest numbers of compensated deaths were recorded in Satna and Sagar.
The researchers also cautioned that even these figures probably underestimate the real burden because compensation records exclude deaths for which families did not claim compensation or could not establish eligibility.
At the same time, the compensation figures were many times higher than routine official health statistics.
In Madhya Pradesh, estimates put annual snakebite deaths at around 2,500-2,800, placing the state among those with the highest number of snakebite fatalities in the country. Neighbouring Uttar Pradesh follows with around 2,000-2,200 deaths, while Odisha is estimated at around 1,200-1,500. Snakebite has been recognised as a state disaster in Odisha.
The new WII study could eventually improve on compensation records by linking snake species, habitat, location, season and human exposure rather than merely recording where a person died.
Why might even the compensation figures underestimate snakebite deaths?
Compensation records are not the same thing as a complete death register.
A family has to make a claim and establish that the death resulted from snakebite. Some families may not claim compensation, while others may not be able to establish eligibility.
The Madhya Pradesh study therefore suggests the compensation figures probably underestimate total snakebite mortality.
Madhya Pradesh pays Rs 4 lakh for an eligible snakebite death. Families generally have to establish that the death resulted from snakebite, commonly through medical and post-mortem documentation.
Will studying snakes actually reduce snakebite deaths?
Not on its own.
Measures that directly save lives include rapid transport, correctly administered anti-snake venom, ventilatory support when needed, trained doctors, adequate rural supplies of anti-snake venom, public awareness, and reliable reporting.
But better information about snakes can make these measures more targeted.
If the study identifies areas where medically important snakes are relatively common, health authorities could consider keeping anti-venom and emergency equipment in those areas, training medical personnel and improving ambulance networks.
If it identifies snake-rich agricultural landscapes, prevention programmes could be directed towards farmers and other people at greatest risk.
If it records road mortality, the information could also help wildlife managers consider wildlife crossings and other road-management measures.
The study could also help researchers examine whether India’s existing polyvalent anti-snake venom adequately covers locally important species.
Does India have a national plan for snakebite?
Yes. India launched its National Action Plan for Snakebite Envenoming in 2024.
The plan focuses on reducing illness and deaths through better surveillance, stronger health systems, emergency care, availability of anti-snake venom, training, public awareness, regional venom centres and operational research.
The Madhya Pradesh study could support some of these objectives by providing better information about where medically important snakes occur and where people are most likely to come into contact with them.
What could the study add to public-health planning?
The most useful outcome would be to connect information about snakes with information about people.
For example, knowing that a particular district has many Russell’s vipers is useful. Knowing that the same district also has a large agricultural workforce, poor night-time transport and inadequate anti-venom supplies is much more useful for public policy.
If medically important snakes are concentrated in particular areas, health authorities could use that information to plan where anti-venom and emergency equipment should be available, where medical personnel need additional training and where ambulance networks need strengthening.
If snake-rich agricultural landscapes are identified, farmers and other people working in those areas could be prioritised for prevention and awareness programmes.
If the study identifies road mortality, it could help wildlife authorities consider wildlife crossings and other road-management measures.
A reliable picture of snake distribution could also help researchers examine whether India’s existing polyvalent anti-snake venom adequately covers locally important species.
Could the study help connect wildlife data with health data?
That is one of its larger potential benefits.
At present, the Forest Department records wildlife information, while the health system records snakebite patients and deaths. These are largely separate datasets.
The WII study could help bring them together by linking snake species, habitat, location and season with information about human exposure and confirmed snakebites.
The next logical step would be a broader snakebite map combining snake distribution and species with agricultural patterns, rainfall, human habitation, road connectivity, hospital locations, anti-venom stocks and confirmed bites.
Such information would be more useful for public policy than simply knowing that there are “many snakes” in Madhya Pradesh.
What are the main limitations?
A snake census is not a tiger census. Estimating absolute snake populations is technically difficult.
A photograph or sighting establishes that a snake is present at a location, but it does not establish how many snakes live there. Some snakes will remain hidden or otherwise go undetected.
The study should therefore be judged on the quality of its sampling and statistical methods rather than on whether it produces a precise statewide headcount.
Another important limitation is that more snakes do not necessarily mean more snakebites.
Human behaviour, habitat modification, agricultural practices, housing, monsoon conditions and access to healthcare are also important factors.
So, what would success look like when the study ends in 2027?
Success would mean that the state can answer, with much greater confidence: Which medically important snakes occur where? Which habitats and districts have the greatest human exposure? When do bites peak? Which communities are most vulnerable? Where should anti-venom be stocked? How quickly can victims reach treatment? And are deaths actually declining?
The study could also establish a method that can be repeated in future years and possibly adapted elsewhere in India.
That would make the exercise more than a wildlife survey. It could link information about snakes with information about people, hospitals, farming, and healthcare.
The point is not to count every snake in the state. It is to know enough about snakes, people and where they come into contact to reduce the risk of bites and prevent avoidable deaths.
(This is the concluding part of a two-pat explainer series on the snake census initiated by government of Madhya Pradesh in March, 2026.)
