Supreme Court says it cannot be a mute spectator, orders Kerala to take charge of tusker amid ownership row

Observing that courts cannot remain “mute spectators” when the well-being of voiceless animals is at stake, the Supreme Court has directed the Kerala government to take custody of Raman, an elephant, and shift it to a rescue and rehabilitation centre pending a final decision on its ownership.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said it was compelled to pass the direction after finding that the tusker had been subjected to commercial exploitation and used in ceremonial processions and rituals despite an earlier order expressly prohibiting such use.

“In the given circumstances, where the issue pertaining to the custody of the elephant in question is yet to be decided finally; and with a view to prioritise the health and overall well-being of the elephant in question, this court deems it appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to take over the custody of the elephant in question, i.e., Raman, and house it in an appropriate rescue/rehabilitation centre,” the Bench said in an interim order on Tuesday (June 9, 2026).

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

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

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

Upkeep and care

Mr. Menon contended that Mr. Krishnankutty had been entrusted with the elephant only for its care and upkeep on a temporary basis. However, he alleged that Mr. Krishnankutty continued to retain custody of Raman and subsequently asserted ownership over the animal through forged and fabricated gift deeds.

Subsequently, the top court directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to Raman’s custody and obtained an undertaking from Mr. Krishnankutty that the elephant would not be used for commercial or temple-related activities. The court also directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, or the senior-most officer in charge of wildlife conservation in Kerala, to inspect Raman and submit a report on its health and well-being.

Mr. Menon later moved the court alleging breach of the undertaking. He claimed that Mr. Krishnankutty had continued to use the elephant in temple festivals and placed photographs, posters, and social media posts on record in support of his allegations.

Taking a serious view of the alleged violation, the Bench observed that it would be failing in its duty if it did not step in to safeguard the well-being of the tusker.

“It is truly unfortunate that the elephant in question…, who also happens to be the tallest elephant in the State of Kerala, has been subjected to commercial exploitation despite an order restraining such exploitation, that too on the strength of an undertaking made before this court. We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless, if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance. We cannot be mute spectators, more so in matters pertaining to voiceless animals, whose well-being is also of paramount importance,” the Bench said.

Accordingly, it directed the State government to immediately take custody of the tusker.

“…the State of Kerala may also proceed to temporarily care for the elephant at its own expense, in which case it may pass appropriate administrative orders in accordance with the statutory safeguards enshrined under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,” it added.

The court also imposed a fine of ₹2,000 on Mr. Krishnankutty after finding him guilty of contempt for breaching the undertaking furnished to the court.