1. Petitioners seek registration of a temple under the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012, and permission for elephant processions after the prescribed registration deadline expired. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
Ravi E – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 29289 OF 2026
Important Points
A timeline specifically prescribed by the Supreme Court for the registration of temples under the Kerala Captive Elephant Rules is binding and cannot be extended by the High Court or the State Government.
Subject
Civil - Wildlife and Environmental Law
Act Referred
Kerala Captive Elephant (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012: R.10
Headnote
(A) Captive Elephant Management - Registration of Temples - Binding nature of Supreme Court timelines - Where the Supreme Court has prescribed a specific timeline for the registration of temples for effective control of captive elephants, such timeline is binding and cannot be extended by the High Court or the State Government. (Para 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the High Court can direct the registration of a temple or extend the timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court for such registration.
Issues: Whether the High Court can direct the registration of a temple or extend the timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court for such registration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: R. Unnikrishnan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: R. Unnikrishnan
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend the registration deadline is extendable; respondents argue the petitioners failed to apply within the prescribed and extended timelines. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court found the registration timeline fixed by the Supreme Court to be binding and not subject to extension by the High Court or the Government. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. A specific timeline for registration mandated by the Supreme Court in a binding judgment cannot be extended by a lower court or the executive. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. Can a High Court or the Government extend a registration deadline specifically fixed by the Supreme Court in a binding judgment?
No, a timeline fixed by the Supreme Court for registration to ensure effective control is binding and cannot be extended by the High Court or the Government. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. What is the effect of failing to register a temple within a Supreme Court-mandated timeline for captive elephant management?
Failure to register within the binding timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court precludes the High Court from directing delayed registration or ordering the government to consider late applications. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. Does the High Court have the power to direct the government to consider a representation for registration if it contradicts a Supreme Court timeline?
No, the High Court cannot direct the consideration of an application to extend time for registration if such a direction would contradict a binding timeline fixed by the Supreme Court. (Para 8 )
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.29289 of 2026
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioners seek for a direction to register the Sree Manathala Shiva-Parvathi Temple under the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The petitioners also seek for a declaration that the respondents are duty-bound to register the Temple and grant permission to the petitioners to conduct the elephant procession in connection with the Temple festival, notwithstanding the expiry of the time limit prescribed in Exhibit-P4.2. The first petitioner claims to be the Trustee of Sree Manathala Shiva-Parvathi Temple at Tirur, Malappuram, while the second petitioner claims to be a devotee and the President of the said Temple. According to the petitioners, they have been parading elephants for the last several years and have continued to do so during festivals even after the commencement of the Rules. In the meantime, the Supreme Court, by its judgment in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. /strong>. [(2016) 1 SCC 716], issued certain directions, including a direction that the Temples or the Devaswoms should register themselves with the District Committee within a period of six weeks from 18.08.2015. According to the petitioners, due to various reasons, they could not register the Temple with the District Committee. In the meantime, after the expiry of the timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court, the Government issued an order dated 20.04.2022 permitting registration of elephants parades and directing strict implementation of the Supreme Court's order by 31.05.2022. The petitioners could not register the Temple even within the extended time. Subsequently, in 2026, the second petitioner submitted an application to the Minister for Forests, Government of Kerala, seeking registration of the aforesaid Temple for the purpose of parading elephants. However, by Exhibit-P5, the third respondent declined the request, and hence, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned earlier.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent stating that many Temples could not register within the prescribed timeline and that, pursuant to the Government Order, an additional 84 applications were received by 31.05.2022, and registration was granted to those applicants. It is further stated that, altogether, 320 Temples/Devaswoms/Nercha Committees have been registered with the District-Level Committee in Malappuram District alone, while despite the grant of several opportunities, the Temple represented by the petitioners had not submitted any application. It is further stated that there are only 392 captive elephants available in Kerala, according to a survey conducted and thus sought dismissal of the writ petition.
4. A reply statement has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, pointing out that the Supreme Court had only directed the implementation of the Rules and did not strictly indicate that the time limit for registration could not be extended. It is further stated that a sympathetic consideration of the matter would not cause any prejudice, especially in the light of the Government Order issued in 2022.
5. I have heard Sri. K. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. R. Unnikrishnan, the learned Senior Government Pleader (Forest).
6. The Temples were not required to be registered under the Rules. However, the Supreme Court, in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (supra), directed the registration of the Temples. The following observations in the above judgment are relevant:
“13. At this juncture, a question arose whether the te
