The court confirmed the legal permissibility of transferring captive Elephants by private owners when transfers are non-commercial, emphasizing protective oversight for their welfare.

JUDGMENT

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. - Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard all parties.

2. The above PIL petition is filed by practicing advocate in public interest with prayers to seek a direction restraining transfer and transportation of captive bred Elephants from Northeast India and in particular from the States of Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh to an Elephant Camp of respondent No.3 and the petitioner further seeks an order directing an inquiry into past transfers and transport of Elephants from North Eastern States.

3. In support of the prayers sought, the petitioner has relied upon a news report in the Hindu to show that there are several elephants in captivity in North East States of India particularly in Tripura, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner also relies upon a news article in www.nenow.in which refers to letters of wildlife organization. The petitioner submits relying on the article that many groups in these States are known to capture Elephants from the wild and force them into captivity for the purpose of selling them. The petitioner submits that the State of Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh propose to transfer around 30 Elephants between them to an Elephant Camp established by the respondent No.3 in Jamnagar, Gujarat. The petitioner submits that the Supreme Court by an interim order dtd. 4/5/2016 passed in Writ Petition No.743 of 2014 has restrained authorities from issuing certificate of ownership for captive Elephants and has further restrained their transfer outside their State. The petitioner submits that despite this order, transfers have been made in the past and in support of the said submission the petitioner relies upon a news report of eastmojo, a news website. The petitioner also submits that Elephants from the North East must not be transferred to a warmer climate in Gujarat. In this regard, the petitioner also relies upon an order dtd. 25/6/2019 passed by the Guwahati High Court in PIL No.39 of 2019 by which the authorities were directed to reconsider an order permitting transport of an Elephant for a religious procession.

4. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is a Trust with uncertain financial capacity. The petitioner further submits that he was unable to locate the Camp and find any setup or infrastructure to support large number of Elephants. The petitioner submitted various different types of actions that according to him the respondent No.3 is doing at the Camp which amounts to subjecting the Elephants to cruelty. The petitioner has strenuously urged us to direct the authorities to reclaim the Elephants from the respondent No.3 to remove them from what according to the petitioner is a life of torture, suffering and cruelty.

5. On behalf of the respondent No.3, a written submission is tendered by Ld. Advocate. The respondent No.3 has relied upon permissions from authority with respect to establishment of its camp. The respondent No.3 submits that it is a no-profit organization. The respondent No.3 submits that it does not intend to convert the Camp into any sort of zoo or carry out any commercial activity whatsoever. The respondent No.3 has relied upon an order dtd. 6/6/2022 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.10688 of 2022 with respect to the respondent No.3's camp and transfers of Elephants to their camp. The respondent No.3 has relied upon an order of the Supreme Court dtd. 1/8/2022 by which the order dtd. 6/6/2022 of the Karnataka High Court is confirmed. While denying the petitioner's allegations regarding lack o