Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Preventing Temples From Acquiring New Elephants

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that bar imposed by the single judge was against the permission granted under The Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, framed under Section 64(2)(f) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, in which the Parliament itself had thought to permit acquisition of elephants subject to obtaining requisite permission.

“A blanket bar of the kind found in paragraph 15 of the impugned order runs counter to the statutory permission, which Parliament itself has thought fit to retain, subject to obtaining requisite permission from the authorities concerned,” the court said.

It may be noted that in March 2023, while hearing a plea regarding custody of an elephant Lalitha, a single judge of the High Court had directed the Secretary of the Environment and Forest Department to coordinate with the Secretary of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) Department to consider shifting captive elephants to Government Rehabilitation Camps. The court also directed the HR&CE Department to issue directions to all the temples in Tamil Nadu not to acquire any more elephants.

Challenging this order, the Arulmighu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil approached the division bench. It was argued that the single judge had imposed substantive obligations on the temples without making them a party to the proceedings. The temple argued that the order was made without issuing notice or without granting an opportunity of hearing.

The temple pointed out that the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 permitted acquisition of captive animal with prior written permission of the Chief Wildlife Warden and the single judge's ruling ran counter to this existing scheme, without challenging the scheme itself.

The division bench noted that the issue before the single judge was with respect to transfer of ownership of elephant Lalitha and there was no prayer seeking direction to the HR & CE Department to instruct every temple in TN not to acquire an elephant.

The court highlighted that while exercising writ jurisdiction, the court should confine itself to the relief pleaded and cannot grant something that the parties have not asked. The court added that this principle was not just a technicality but the very foundation of a fair hearing. The court also highlighted that even if the direction may be well-intentioned, it cannot sustain if it is passed against persons who were strangers to the proceedings.

“A court cannot grant a relief that no party has asked for, particularly when granting it visits consequences on persons who were never given a chance to be heard. This is not a technicality. It is the very foundation of a fair hearing. However well-intentioned a direction may be, it cannot be sustained if it is passed against persons who were strangers to the proceeding and who had no opportunity to place their case before the court. This, in our view, is precisely what happened with paragraph 15 of the impugned order, so far as it concerns temples and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,” the court noted.

Thus, the court was inclined to interfere with the order of the single judge, so far as it restrained temples from acquiring new elephants.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. A. K. Sriram Senior Counsel for Mr. Muthugeethayan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Bharanidharan Special Government Pleader, Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Spl Government Pleader

Case Title: Arulmigu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil v The Principal Secretary to Government

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

Case No: WA (MD) Nos 979 and 848 of 2023