Can't be a mute spectator, Supreme Court orders Kerala to take charge of tusker amid ownership dispute

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said they were compelled to issue the direction after finding that the tusker was being put to commercial use and used in ceremonial processions and rituals despite an earlier order that specifically prohibited such use. | Photo credit: The Hindu

Since courts cannot remain “mute spectators” when the welfare of voiceless animals is threatened, the Supreme Court ordered the Kerala government to take custody of Raman the elephant and move him to a rescue and rehabilitation center pending a decision on his ownership.

“In the circumstances, where the question regarding the care of the elephant in question is yet to be finally decided; and in view of prioritizing the health and overall welfare of the elephant in question, this court deems it appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to take over the care of the elephant in question, namely Raman, the concerned rescue center said in Benim on Tuesday (June 9, 2026).

The judges clarified that the arrangement was purely temporary and would continue only until the ownership issue was finally decided.

The order came on a contempt petition filed by Jayakrishnan Menon. He alleged that Krishnankutty, who was given temporary custody of the elephant amid a dispute with the Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt, had breached an assurance given to the court on 6 August 2025 that Raman would not be used for “commercial or temple activities” in the meantime.

On 8 December 2023, the trial court granted interim custody of the tusker to Mr. Menon after furnishing a bail bond of ₹25 lakh. The Kerala High Court subsequently set aside the order and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh hearing, prompting Mr. Menon to approach the Supreme Court.

Maintenance and care

Mr. Menon claimed that Mr. Krishnankutty was entrusted with the elephant only for temporary care and maintenance. However, he alleged that Mr Krishnankutty continued to retain custody of Raman and subsequently asserted ownership of the animal through forged and fabricated gift deeds.

Subsequently, the high court ordered the parties to maintain the status quo with respect to Raman’s care and obtained an undertaking from Mr. Krishnankutty that the elephant would not be used for commercial or temple activities. The court also directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests or the senior most wildlife officer in Kerala to inspect Raman and submit a report on his health and welfare.

Mr. Menon later moved the court for alleged breach of undertaking. He alleged that Mr. Krishnankutty continued to use the elephant in temple festivals and put up photographs, posters and social media posts to support his allegations.

The Bench took serious note of the alleged violation and held that it would be failing in its duty if it did not intervene to protect the welfare of the glider.

“It is really unfortunate that the elephant in question…which also happens to be the tallest elephant in the state of Kerala, has been subjected to commercial exploitation despite an order restraining such exploitation and that too on the basis of an undertaking made before this court. We would be failing in our duty to the deaf if we turn a blind eye to such mute animals, so we cannot be so in the case of mute defiance. Also of paramount importance,” he said. Bench.

Accordingly, it directed the state government to immediately take custody of the jailer.

“…The State of Kerala may also take temporary care of the elephant at its own expense, in which case it may issue appropriate administrative orders in accordance with the statutory safeguards enshrined in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,” he added.

The court also imposed a fine of ₹2,000 on Mr. Krishnankutty after finding him guilty of contempt for breach of undertaking brought before the court.

Published – 10 Jun 2026 23:16 IST