Bombay High Court: The present petition was filed by Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (‘petitioner’) seeking to quash two orders passed by the High-Power Committee (‘HPC’) and to direct the forest authorities not to transfer the elephant, named Mahadevi, to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (‘RKTEWT’) at Jamnagar. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale*, JJ., agreeing with the analysis of the HPC, observed that RKTEWT was suitable to house Mahadevi and to provide her with timely and much needed succor. The Court stated that the elephant’s survival and right to quality life is above rights of men to use the elephant for religious rites and dismissed the petition.
Background:
The petitioner, a Jain Trust, registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, owned a female elephant named Mahadevi since 1992, citing religious tradition. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (‘PETA’) raised concerns about Mahadevi’s welfare, prompting the HPC to order her transfer to a specialized elephant care center, RKTEWT in Jamnagar, Gujarat, on 28-12-2023. The petitioner challenged this order, leading the Court to ask the HPC to reconsider. After inspection and review, the HPC reaffirmed the transfer on 27-12-2024. The petitioner again contested the decision, and the Court directed the HPC to hear their grievance. After further deliberation, the HPC upheld its decision for a third time on 3-6-2025, ordering Mahadevi’s transfer to RKTEWT.
The petitioner alleged that PETA had made the complaint upon false news with an ulterior motive to facilitate RKTEWT to add to its collection of elephants and to deprive the petitioner of the said elephant. It was also contended that the HPC overlooked the medical certificates filed by the petitioner in support of its claim that Mahadevi was properly looked after and ignored that she had religious value. The petitioner argued that the proviso to Section 43(2) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, permitted the use of elephants for religious purposes and Mahadevi was transferred to Telangana after obtaining necessary permission from the Forest Department and also claimed its fundamental right to express their idea of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.
However, PETA alleged that the petitioner only had a commercial interest in retaining the custody of the elephant under the pretext of religious requirements. The photographic evidence of Mahadevi, submitted by PETA, showed her restrained with chains on two legs; living in a small dirty shed with hard floor and her foot pads and toenails were painfully overgrown and infected. She was found to be kept in severe solitary confinement.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court, after considering the inspection reports of the sub-committee, noted that it clearly stated that the wounds, back injury, severe foot rot and overgrown nails required specialized veterinary treatment, which if left unattended were bound to severely compromise the elephant’s quality of life. The Court observed that the health certificates issued by the doctors engaged by the petitioner, indicating that the elephant was healthy and sound, were contradictory to the detailed medical and over all reports of the sub-committee of the HPC as well as the recent photographs of the elephant.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the elephant’s condition was improving and held that it established the fact that she suffered injuries while being under its ‘care’ and custody. The petitioner offered no explanation as to the injuries on the elephant’s back to which the Court opined that the only fathomable culprit could be the ‘howdrah’, which was placed on the elephant’s back to carry loudspeakers and human beings during processions. The Court stated that the elephant did not deserve to be used to ferry humans and equipments. The petitioner further submitted that he was ready to provide some facilities like 10,000 litre water tank, health checkups, etc., for the elephant but the Court was of the view that the efforts made by the petitioner were too little and too late, to redeem the neglect and to compensate for the damage caused to the mental and physical health of the elephant.
The petitioner had contended that there was no fundamental right of an animal that could be enforced by a Constitutional Court, but the HPC leaned in favor of the well-being and liberty of the elephant in captivity against the community’s alleged rights canvassed by the petitioner under Article 25 of the Constitution. The HPC relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547, wherein it was held that the traditions, customs and religious beliefs were not above animal welfare obligations. The Court approved the views of the HPC on this matter.
The Court, after noting the HPC’s appreciation of the said reserve, especially the daily access to natural areas for feeding, bathing, socialization and herd integration, remarked that RKTEWT was a godsent facility for the long-suffering elephant. The Court addressed the petitioner’s concerns about transferring the elephant to RKTEWT and observed that Maharashtra lacked a dedicated elephant sanctuary. While such sanctuaries existed in Kerala and other states, RKTEWT was the nearest suitable facility, ensuring that no prolonged suffering during transportation was caused to the elephant.
The Court recognised its duty under the doctrine of parens patriae to secure the rights of the voiceless and hapless Mahadevi, and after due consideration, chose the survival of the elephant and its right to quality life, over and above the rights of men to use the elephant for religious rites. The Court further opined that in circumstances of conflict between the rights of an elephant and the rights of its owner to use the elephant in the discharge of its religious activities, priority must be given to the elephant’s welfare.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and directed that the elephant would be transferred to RKTEWT within two weeks of this order.
[Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 4965 of 2025, decided on 16-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Neela Gokhale
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Surel Shah, Senior Counsel with Manoj Patil and Kalyani Mangave.
For the Respondent: Jatin Kochar with Ninan Thikekar, i/b. Karan Singh Shekhawat, for Respondent 2; A. I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader with S. S. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent-State; Shardul Singh with Smeet Savla, for Respondent 6; Vishal Kanade with Prateek Pai, Sita Kapadia, Arunima Athavale, i/b. Keystone Partners, Counsel & Solicitors for Respondent 7.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
