The High Court of Kerala has issued a definitive ruling emphasizing that neither the judiciary nor the executive branch possesses the authority to unilaterally extend deadlines mandated by the Supreme Court of India . In a judgment delivered on October 12, 2026 , by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, the court dismissed a petition filed by the trustees of the Sree Manathala Shiva-Parvathi Temple in Malappuram, which sought to bypass established registration requirements under the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 . The petitioners, Ravi E and K. T. Keshavankutty, had requested a formal direction to allow their temple to register for the purpose of parading elephants during festival celebrations, despite the expiry of the statutory and judicial timelines set for such compliance.

The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to the stringent implementation of welfare protocols for captive elephants. By rejecting the petition, the High Court reinforced that administrative deadlines established by the Supreme Court are binding and cannot be relaxed through subsequent governmental orders or individual representations. This case marks a significant point in the ongoing regulatory effort to ensure that religious institutions adhere strictly to the legal framework governing the use and welfare of captive animals in Kerala.

Enforcing Strict Regulatory Timelines

The conflict centered on the interpretation of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , delivered in 2016 . In its directive, the Supreme Court mandated that all temples and Devaswom boards must register their captive elephant usage with the designated District Committee within a specific window of six weeks. This measure was introduced to establish accountability and ensure that elephant management practices across the state could be effectively monitored and controlled.

The petitioners argued that their failure to register within the initial timeframe was due to various unforeseen administrative reasons. They further contended that the state government’s subsequent orders, specifically a Government Order dated April 20, 2022 , which allowed for additional registration windows, created an expectation that the timeline was flexible. However, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that the 2022 order did not override the fundamental directions issued by the Supreme Court. The court held that the initial six-week deadline established in 2015 was intended to ensure the prompt oversight of animal welfare, and any deviation from this timeline would undermine the very purpose of the court’s intervention.

The court noted that in the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the critical nature of these registrations: "The temple and Devaswom shall, apart from other formalities, also mention how many elephants it is going to use in any festival." This requirement was not merely administrative but was intrinsically linked to the broader mandate for animal welfare, as the apex court observed that "It shall be the duty of the State, the District Committee , Management of the Devaswom, the Management of the Temple and the owners of the elephants to see that no elephant is meted with any kind of cruelty."

The Regulatory Landscape for Temple Parades

During the proceedings, the Forest and Wildlife Department , represented by the Fourth Respondent, submitted evidence highlighting the status of compliance across the state. In the Malappuram district alone, 320 temples, Devaswoms, and Nercha committees had successfully completed their registration with the District-Level Committee , meeting the requirements imposed by the law and the Supreme Court. The department emphasized that the authorities had provided multiple opportunities for institutions to come into compliance, yet the Sree Manathala Shiva-Parvathi Temple had failed to apply within these windows.

The Forest Department further pointed to the limited availability of captive elephants in Kerala, which currently stands at 392. By enforcing strict registration protocols, the state aims to regulate the demand and ensure that each animal is accounted for, tracked, and protected from the stresses of frequent transportation and participation in processions. The court found merit in this data-driven argument, noting that the legislative and judicial intent was to create a closed, controlled system where accountability is non-negotiable.

Balancing Tradition with Animal Welfare Protocols

The petitioners maintained that a sympathetic approach was warranted, asserting that the denial of permission would disrupt long-standing religious traditions. They argued that the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment was meant to ensure the implementation of the rules, not to create an inflexible, exclusionary barrier. However, the High Court clarified that when a mandate comes from the Supreme Court, the high court’s role is to ensure execution rather than to evaluate the feasibility of extending the deadlines based on personal hardship or administrative oversight.

The judgment is a clear signal that the era of lax enforcement regarding captive animal management is over. Even though the petitioners had filed a representation with the state’s Minister for Forests in 2026, the court determined that a directive to consider this representation would be legally redundant. "Without any extension of time granted by the Supreme Court in view of the binding direction in the judgment... it is not proper for this Court either to direct such delayed registration or even to direct consideration of an application to extend the time for registration," the judgment stated.

The court's decision concludes the legal challenge for the Sree Manathala Shiva-Parvathi Temple , which must now operate within the existing regulatory framework. For the state’s Forest and Wildlife Department , the ruling provides essential judicial backing to maintain the integrity of the 2012 Rules. The case serves as a warning to other religious bodies across the state: the legal requirements for parading animals are not suggestions but mandatory obligations , and the failure to comply with the defined timelines cannot be salvaged by seeking judicial relief after the fact. As of the judgment date, the petition stands dismissed, leaving the regulatory status of the temple’s elephant processions unchanged.