Back
Supreme Court Pulls Up Over Failure to Shift Elephant Raman, Seeks Health Report
The on Friday pulled up the for failing to demonstrate compliance with its June order directing the State to take custody of Raman, a captive elephant regarded as the tallest in Kerala, and house it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu expressed strong displeasure over the elephant's continued stay with its caretaker, Krishnankutty, despite the Court's explicit directions in the .
The June order had followed a against Krishnankutty for violating an that Raman would not be subjected to while the dispute over custody and ownership remained pending. Friday's hearing revealed that the State had taken no concrete steps to effect the transfer, prompting sharp observations from the bench.
The Draws Judicial Scepticism
When Justice Datta sought to ascertain Raman's whereabouts, the caretaker informed the Court that the elephant remained in his custody because it was in a state of musth — a periodic condition in male elephants characterised by heightened aggression and elevated testosterone levels — and therefore could not be safely shifted.
The State's counsel supported this explanation. However, the petitioner's counsel countered with a serious allegation: that the state of musth was "induced artificially" whenever an order to shift the elephant was issued.
This assertion drew a sharp response from the bench.
"We will not allow you [the caretaker] to touch it [the elephant],"
Justice Datta told the caretaker.
When the caretaker maintained that Raman had been treated with love and care, Justice Datta was unimpressed, observing:
"Love, care and for the purpose of earning money by defying the Supreme Court's
. We quite understand what love and affection is. We are not going to hear you."
The bench further questioned the timing of the
, noting that if the condition persisted throughout the year — as the arguments suggested — then no elephant could ever be shifted.
"We have read in the newspapers about the shifting of elephant, if musth was a condition all through the year, no elephant could be shifted,"
Justice Datta remarked.
State Pulled Up Over Stale Medical Report
The Court also took exception to the 's failure to place on record a recent medical report on Raman's health. The only report submitted was dated , raising concerns about whether the authorities were regularly monitoring the elephant's condition.
"Are you monitoring the condition of the elephant or not? The last medical report means you have not checked him after 24th June?"
Justice Datta asked the State's counsel.
When the Court directed the State to produce a fresh medical report by Monday, the government sought additional time, a request met with apparent displeasure from the bench. The Court proceeded to pass an order directing the State to file a bringing on record the recent medical report.
The Court's order stated:
"File a counter by the State bring on record the recent medical report on the condition of the elephant called Raman. The counter may be served. In the next date of hearing, the State shall faithfully and honestly comply with the Court's order dated
, in so far as the upkeep of the elephant is concerned."
The Underlying Ownership Dispute
The arise from a long-running dispute over Raman's ownership and custody. Jayakrishna Menon claims that the elephant belongs to and was temporarily entrusted to Krishnankutty for upkeep. Krishnankutty, on the other hand, asserts ownership based on executed in 2017.
The issue of is currently pending before the Supreme Court in arising from proceedings in Kerala courts.
The dispute has been marked by a series of directions and undertakings. On , the Supreme Court directed Kerala's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests — or the State's senior-most wildlife conservation officer — to inspect Raman and submit a report on its health and well-being. On the same day, Krishnankutty's counsel assured the Court that the elephant would not be used for commercial or temple-related activities.
However, a report submitted by state authorities revealed that Raman had been taken to Chavakkad to participate in a temple festival ceremony when officials conducted a detailed inspection on .
Krishnankutty subsequently admitted in written submissions that the elephant had been taken to the temple ritual after another elephant scheduled for the event fell ill. He maintained that Raman's participation was intended only to fulfil religious sentiments and did not amount to . He also tendered an if his actions were considered a violation of the Court's directions.
The Contempt Finding and Direction
Rejecting Krishnankutty's explanation, the Supreme Court held that Raman had been used in temple-related activities, including ceremonial processions and rituals, in violation of the given to the Court. The Court held Krishnankutty guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000, directing him to deposit the amount within four weeks.
Prioritising the animal's welfare, the bench directed the to take custody of Raman and move it to an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation facility. The Court clarified that the arrangement would remain temporary and subject to the final outcome of the pending appeals concerning . It also permitted the State to bear the expenses of caring for the elephant in accordance with the .
The bench, however, discharged the state authorities from the after noting that they had attempted to conduct Raman's medical examination but were initially unable to do so because the elephant was in musth.
Legal Implications and the Path Ahead
The present case underscores the challenges courts face in enforcing compliance with their orders, particularly in matters involving animal welfare. The Supreme Court's observations serve as a reminder that — even those concerning the care of a captive animal — are binding and must be diligently implemented by state authorities.
For legal practitioners, the case highlights several key issues. First, undertakings given to courts carry the force of law, and their violation can result in with serious consequences. Second, the case illustrates how courts scrutinise explanations offered for non-compliance; the "" was evidently viewed with scepticism, particularly when the State appeared to have made no genuine effort to monitor or implement the transfer. Third, the direction regarding the medical report underscores the importance of maintaining accurate and up-to-date records when a court has ordered ongoing supervision of a living being's welfare.
The case also raises broader questions about the custodianship of captive elephants in India. The , the primary legislation governing wildlife conservation in the country, places significant responsibility on state authorities to ensure the welfare of protected species, including captive elephants. The Court's insistence on the State taking custody aligns with the growing judicial recognition of animals as sentient beings entitled to dignity and humane treatment.
Conclusion
As the matter awaits its next hearing, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will not tolerate defiance of its orders — whether by private individuals or by state governments. The direction to file a fresh medical report and the continued monitoring of Raman's upkeep signal that the Court remains engaged with the elephant's welfare, and that the State's obligations under the order cannot be delayed or evaded.
The case serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding animal welfare and ensuring that legal undertakings are honoured in letter and spirit. For now, all eyes will be on Kerala's compliance with the Court's directions, and on whether Raman is finally moved to a facility where his well-being, rather than commercial considerations, is the primary focus.
