Supreme Court Pulls Up Kerala Govt Over Compliance With Direction On Elephant's Upkeep
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
9 Oct 2026 5:27 PM IST
The Supreme Court today(October 9) pulled up the Kerala government for not showing compliance with its June order to take over the custody of Raman, a captive elephant known to be the tallest in Kerala.
It may be recalled that in June, the Court held a Kerala resident, Krishnankutty, guilty of contempt for violating an undertaking that the elephant would not be subjected to commercial exploitation pending the adjudication of the present dispute. Subsequently, it directed the State to take over the custody of Raman and house it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre.
Today, the matter came up before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. When Justice Datta asked about the whereabouts of the elephant, the caretaker informed that it was with him because the elephant was in a state of musth and couldn't be shifted. The State's counsel also supported this argument, but the petitioner's counsel opposed it, stating that whenever there is an order to shift the elephant, the state of musth is "induced artificially."
This compelled Justice Datta to remark: "We will not allow you[the caretaker] to touch it[the elephant]".
The caretaker submitted that the elephant has been treated with love and care. But Justice Datta responded that the musth issue had happened only for a few months and questioned what steps have been taken subsequent to the Court's order.
He also told the caretaker: "Love, care and for the purpose of earning money by defying the Supreme Court's restraint orders. We quite understand what love and affection is. We are not going to hear you."
It may be noted that the present contempt proceedings are a dispute over custody and ownership of Raman. One, Jayakrishna Menon claims that the elephant belongs to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and has only been temporarily entrusted to Krishnankutty for upkeep. Whereas Krishnankutty has asserted ownership rights.
The bench also rapped the State's counsel for failing to put on record the elephant's recent health report. The State had placed on record an old medical report dated June 24. When the Court asked the counsel to place the recent report on Monday, the State's counsel sought more time.
On this, Justice Datta asked:
"Are you monitoring the condition of the elephant or not? The last medical report means you have not checked him after 24th June?...We have read in the newspapers about the shifting of elephant, if musth was a condition all through the year, no elephant could be shifted."
The Court has passed an order directing the State to file an affidavit placing on record the recent medical report of Raman. It said: "File a counter by the State bring on record the recent medical report on the condition of the elephant called Raman. The counter may be served. In the next date of hearing, the State shall faithfully and honestly comply with the Court's order dated 9 June, 2026, in so far as the upkeep of the elephant is concerned."
Background
The contempt proceedings arose out of a long-running dispute over the custody and ownership of Raman. Jayakrishna Menon claimed that the elephant belonged to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and had only been temporarily entrusted to Krishnankutty for upkeep, whereas the latter asserted ownership based on gift deeds executed in 2017. The issue of interim custody is presently pending before the Supreme Court in criminal appeals arising from proceedings before the Kerala courts.
During the pendency of the appeals, the Supreme Court had on August 6, 2025 directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests or the senior-most wildlife conservation officer in Kerala to inspect the elephant and report on its health and well-being. On the same day, counsel for Krishnankutty undertook before the Court that Raman would not be used for any commercial or temple activities.
However, a report submitted by State authorities revealed that when a detailed inspection was finally conducted on February 3, 2026, the elephant had been brought to Chavakkad for participation in a temple festival ceremony. The Court also noted that Krishnankutty admitted in written submissions that Raman had been taken to a temple ritual after another elephant scheduled for the event fell ill. While he claimed that the elephant's presence was only to satisfy religious sentiments and not for commercial exploitation, he tendered an unconditional apology in case the act was perceived as violating the Court's orders.
Rejecting the explanation, the Court held that the elephant had indeed been used in temple-related activities in breach of the undertaking recorded by the Court. It observed that Raman had been taken out and used for ceremonial processions and rituals despite the restraint order.
Taking note of the violation and prioritising the elephant's welfare, the Court directed the State of Kerala to assume custody of Raman and place it in a suitable rescue or rehabilitation facility. The Bench clarified that the arrangement would be temporary and subject to the final outcome of the pending appeals concerning interim custody. The State was also permitted to care for the elephant at its own expense in accordance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Holding Krishnankutty guilty of contempt, the Court imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 and directed him to deposit the amount within four weeks. At the same time, it discharged the State authorities from the contempt proceedings, noting that they had made efforts to conduct the elephant's medical examination but were initially unable to do so because the animal remained in musth.
