New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Kerala government to take over the custody of Raman, Kerala’s tallest elephant, and shift it to a suitable rehabilitation centre, stressing that the welfare of voiceless animals must be protected.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that Raman, standing at 10.53 feet, had been subjected to commercial exploitation and was being used in ceremonial processions and religious rituals despite earlier restrictions imposed by the court.
The bench expressed concern over the alleged violation of an undertaking given before the apex court and said it could not ignore the plight of an animal unable to speak for itself.
“It is truly unfortunate that the elephant Raman has been subjected to commercial exploitation despite an order restraining such exploitation. We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance,” the court observed.
The court held Krishnankutty guilty of contempt for wilfully violating the undertaking made before the Supreme Court and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 on him. However, the court clarified that the transfer of custody to the Kerala government is temporary and will remain subject to its final decision in the matter.
The bench further said the state government could care for the elephant at its own expense and issue necessary administrative orders in accordance with the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
At the same time, the Supreme Court discharged state authorities from contempt proceedings, noting that they had made efforts to conduct a medical examination of the elephant.
The case arose from a contempt petition filed by Jayakrishna Menon, who claimed that Raman belonged to the Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and had only been entrusted to Krishnankutty temporarily for care and maintenance.
Krishnankutty, however, maintained that the elephant had been legally transferred to him through gift deeds and asserted that he had been looking after Raman continuously for the past 10 to 12 years.
The court’s order marks a significant intervention in the ongoing dispute over the ownership and welfare of the elephant, placing its immediate well-being above competing ownership claims.
