IMPORTANT POINT
The court mandates strict implementation of the Kerala Captive Elephants Rules to prevent cruelty and ensure welfare, emphasizing the judicial role in filling regulatory gaps.

ORDER :

1. ‘Treblinka’ is infamous for being the second-deadliest extermination camp to be built and operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II. In the introduction to the book ‘Zoopolis - A Political Theory of Animal Rights’ the authors [Zoopolis - A Political Theory of Animal Rights - Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka (2011), Oxford University Press] refer to the work of Charles Patterson [Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust - Patterson, Charles (2002), Lantern Books, New York] in the following words:

“In Charles Patterson’s provocative words, the general state of human-animal relations is best characterized as an ‘Eternal Treblinka”

This case and the orders that we have been called upon to issue from time to time regarding captive elephants lead us to conclude that the life of an elephant in captivity is an ‘Eternal Treblinka’.

2. This case has been listed today for considering the issue of certain directions for the effective implementation of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2012 Rules’) and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and others Vs. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 716. We have heard Sri. Asok M Cherian, the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. Hariraj M.R the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Additional 10th respondent, the learned amicus curiae and other learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though the Kerala Elephant Owners Federation was impleaded as the additional 24th respondent on its own application, Sri. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned Counsel appearing for the additional 24th respondent submits that the said organization is not interested in being a party to these proceedings and wishes to withdraw from these proceedings. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the additional 24th respondent that he will place on record a copy of the resolution of the organization seeking to withdraw from these proceedings, we have not passed any order today on the basis of his submission. We have also heard Sri. Renjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in I.A No. 34 of 2024 which is an interlocutory application to implead the applicant therein as additional respondent in the Writ Petition. Though we have not allowed the said application for impleading, we have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel. The learned Additional Advocate General states that the framing of new Rules to replace the 2012 Rules is gaining the attention of the Government and that a meeting of all stakeholders is proposed soon and, therefore, this matter may be adjourned. However, we are not inclined to adjourn this matter. Time and again and for nearly one and a half years this Court has been informed that the State is in the process of overhauling the 2012 Rules. However, we are informed that the authorities are dragging their feet reportedly at the behest of pressure groups including associations of elephant owners who want the 2012 Rules to be further diluted while the need of the hour was to make it more stringent. We believe that the issuance of directions for the proper implementation of the 2012 Rules has become imperative for reasons that are indicated hereunder. Sri Renjith Thampan contends that the Court should not make law. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India & Anr. (2020) 13 SCC 585 in support of this contention. We do not consider this submission of Mr.Renjith Thampan to be of any moment as even if we were to issue certain additional directions to ensure the proper working of the 2012 Rules, the same would also be justified on authority of the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 161 where it was held:

114. Apart from the power to make subordinate legislation as a delegate of the l