'Elephants' Right To Quality Life Prevails Over Its Use For Religious Customs': Bombay High Court

In a conflict between the 'right to quality life' of an animal and the right of humans to use the animals, particularly elephants for religious rites, the former must be considered, held the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 16) while allowing the transport of an elephant - Mahadevi, from Maharashtra's Kolhapur district to an elephant sanctuary in Gujarat's Jamnagar district. 

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale rejected a petition filed by Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur - a Jain temple trust, which challenged the order of a High Power Committee (HPC) that had recommended transfer of - Radhe Krishna Elephant Welfare Trust (RKEWT) in Jamnagar. 

"We have considered and chosen 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. We have no doubt that the Petitioner-Math may have had no deliberate intent to cause injury to the elephant however, in the given circumstances of conflict between the rights of an elephant and the rights of Petitioner-Math to use the elephant in the discharge of its religious activities, priority must be given to the elephant's welfare. The Court has duty under the doctrine parens patriae to secure the rights of the voiceless and hapless Mahadevi," the judges observed in the order. 

The judges even invoked the words of Lawrence Anthony in his book 'The Elephant Whisperer', stating, "We cannot but reminisce the words of Lawrence Anthony - But perhaps the most important lesson I learned is that there are no walls between humans and the elephants except those that we put up ourselves, and that until we allow not only elephants, but all living creatures their place in the sun, we can never be whole ourselves."

Further, the bench agreed with the contentions of a High Power Committee (HPC) that the well being of the elephant must be considered over the religious activities of the Math, where it is presently kept. 

"The Committee also considered the argument of the Math regarding requirement of the elephant to carry out its objectives and religious activities. However, the HPC has leaned in favor of the well-being and liberty of the elephant in captivity against the community's alleged rights canvassed by the Petitioner-Math, under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. We agree," the bench said. 

The judges noted from the record that the elephant has been in a bad shape physically and in fact the Math itself contended that the injuries on the elephant's back and toes etc have now improved. It said that the argument of the elephant's convalescence and that her condition is now improving has no strength and does not further the case of the Petitioner.

"In fact this argument is quite counterproductive inasmuch as it establishes the fact that the elephant suffered injuries while being under the 'care' and custody of the Petitioner-Math. We are definitely not impressed by this argument . At the outset, there is no explanation offered by the Petitioner as to what caused the injuries on the elephant's back in the first place. The only fathomable culprit can be the howdrah that may have been placed on the elephant's back to carry loudspeakers and human beings during processions. This continued treatment of the elephant is callous and brutal. The elephant does not deserve to be used to ferry weighty humans and equipments. Thus, this argument cannot be taken to be a mitigating factor in favour of the Petitioner," the bench underscored. 

As far as the efforts taken by the Math now - constructing 10,000 litre water tank, walking elephant for 5 to 10 kilometres in a day, health check-ups, taking the elephant for bath once a week and replacing the cement/concrete platform with mud, were only 'cosmetic' and 'too little and too late in the day' to redeem the neglect and to commiserate for the damage caused to the mental and physical health of the elephant.

As regards the facility at RKTEWT the judges noted that the HPC has appreciated the institutional background and experience of the said reserve. It referred to the photographs of the specialised sanctuary and assured itself of the suitability of the RKTEWT of housing the elephant, especially the daily access to natural areas for feeding, bathing, socialisation and herd integration.

"All these facilities, including the number of personnel, care givers, international veterinary consultants, biologists specialising in elephant behaviour, etc are available for inhabitants of the reserve. It appears to be a godsent facility for the long suffering elephant. We also weighed in the doubts raised by the Petitioner regarding the suggestion of PETA to transfer the elephant only in RKTEWT and not any other sanctuary and explored the possibility of rehabilitating Mahadevi within the State of Maharashtra itself, but we are told that Maharashtra as yet does not have any Elephant Sanctuary," the bench noted. 

Sanctuaries exclusively caring for elephants do exist in Kerala and other states, however RKTEWT, Jamnagar, is the closest to Maharashtra and the elephant will not have suffer pronged agony during transportation to any other far flung area, the judges said.

"We find the RKTEWT suitable to house Mahadevi and provide her with timely and much needed succour. Thus, we have no hesitation in confirming the order passed by the HPC," the judges said while dismissing the plea by the Math.

Appearance:

Senior Advocate Surel Shah along with Advocates Manoj Patil and Kalyani Mangave appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocates Jatin Kochar, Ninan Thikekar and Karan Singh Shekhawat represented the HPC.

Additional Government Pleader AI Patel along with Assistant Government Pleader SS Bhende represented the State.

Advocates Shardul Singh and Smeet Savla represented the RKTEWT.

Advocates Vishal Kanade, Prateek Pai, Sita Kapadia and Arunima Athavale instructed by Keystone Partners, Counsel & Solicitors represented PETA.

Case Title: Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur vs Union of India (Writ Petition 4965 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment