Back
Breaking Silence: Takes Custody of ‘Raman’ After Contemptuous Breach
In a stern message regarding the welfare of voiceless animals, the of India has held a respondent guilty of for violating a formal regarding the of a named ‘Raman’. The Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, directed the to immediately assume custody of the elephant and house it in a suitable rehabilitation facility.
A Chequered History of Custody
The case of 'Raman', famed as the tallest elephant in Kerala, has been the subject of a long-standing legal battle. The dispute centers on competing claims of ownership: the petitioner, Jayakrishna Menon, contends the elephant belongs to the and was only temporarily entrusted to the respondent, Krishnankutty, for care. Conversely, Krishnankutty asserts ownership based on gift deeds executed in .
With various proceedings already traversing through the trial courts and the , the matter is currently pending before the . During these appeals, the Apex Court had sought to safeguard the animal’s health by commissioning expert medical inspections and securing an that the elephant would not be utilized for commercial or temple activities.
The Breach of Faith
The proceedings were triggered when evidence—including social media posts and photographs—suggested that, contrary to his solemn , Krishnankutty continued to parade 'Raman' in temple processions and commercial events.
While the respondent attempted to justify the elephant's presence at a temple ritual as an "isolated instance" to prevent the displeasure of deities and facilitate the elephant's exercise, the remained unmoved. The Court rejected this explanation, characterizing the act as a clear defiance of its previous order.
Judicial Reasoning: Protecting the Voiceless
The Court’s ruling emphasized that judicial undertakings are not mere formalities but binding obligations. Central to the Court's decision was the ethical mandate to intervene when animal welfare is at risk.
"It is truly unfortunate that the elephant in question i.e., Raman, who also happens to be the tallest elephant in the has been subjected to despite an order restraining such exploitation, that too on the strength of an made before this Court. We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless, if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance."
The Court further noted,
"We cannot be a mute spectator, more so in matters pertaining to voiceless animals, whose wellbeing is also of paramount importance."
Final Orders and Implications
The has imposed a fine of ₹2,000 on the respondent for his . Crucially, the order to transfer custody to the serves as a temporary safeguard, effective until the underlying appeals regarding ownership and permanent custody are resolved.
Notably, the Bench discharged the from the petition, noting that their initial failure to inspect the elephant was due to the animal being in (a periodic condition of aggression in male elephants), rather than a deliberate refusal to comply with the Court’s directives.
This ruling underscores a growing judicial trend towards strict enforcement of animal protection statutes, such as the , signaling that those entrusted with the care of captive animals will be held strictly accountable for any breach of .
Key Observations
*
"We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless, if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance."
*
"We cannot be a mute spectator, more so in matters pertaining to voiceless animals, whose wellbeing is also of paramount importance."
*
"It is evidently clear that the elephant in question i.e., Raman was indeed taken out and used towards ceremonial processions and rituals in defiance of the
made on behalf of Respondent no. 1 before this Court."
