In a case testing the boundaries between religious freedoms and statutory animal welfare obligations, the Bombay High Court confronted a dispute over the custody of a temple-owned elephant amidst allegations of neglect and unlawful transfer. At the heart of the matter lay the question- can a religious institution’s asserted rights under Article 25 of the Constitution override the statutory protections extended to a sentient, Schedule I wild animal under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972? Read on to explore how the Court addressed this sensitive intersection of faith, custodianship, and constitutional compassion.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from a dispute over the custody of a captive female elephant, Mahadevi, owned by the Petitioner, Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, a Jain trust in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, since 1992. Registered under the Wildlife (Protection) (Maharashtra) (Amendment) Rules, 2004, Mahadevi was alleged by PETA to be kept in poor conditions. Acting on these claims, the High Power Committee (HPC), directed her transfer to Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT), Gujarat, citing medical issues, including foot rot and psychological distress. The Petitioner challenged the order for want of a fair hearing. In April 2025, the Bombay High Court directed reconsideration after hearing the Petitioner. However, on 3 June 2025, the HPC reiterated its decision. The Petitioner then amended the writ petition to challenge both orders, leading to the present proceedings before the High Court.
Contentions of Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the HPC’s order was legally unsustainable and violative of natural justice, as it failed to consider the submitted representation. It was argued that the subsequent order also suffered from legal infirmity, having disregarded material evidence, including medical certificates attesting to the elephant’s care and the death certificate of the head priest, which refuted PETA’s allegation of the elephant’s involvement in his death.
The Petitioner emphasised the religious importance of the elephant, associating it with the 2nd Bhagwan Tirthankar and community worship, protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. It was further submitted that the proviso to Section 43(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 permits the use of elephants for religious purposes, and the elephant’s temporary movement to Telangana was a bona fide error without mala fide intent.
The complaint by PETA was alleged to be mala fide, aimed at transferring the elephant to RKTEWT. The Petitioner claimed to have provided adequate medical care and possessed the financial means to ensure the elephant’s well-being.
Contentions of Respondent:
The Respondents alleged that the Petitioner transported Mahadevi to Telangana for a Muharram procession without securing the mandatory Forest Department NOC and received Rs. 4 lakhs in return. Visual evidence showed the elephant being paraded in crowded events, restrained with ropes, burdened with howdahs, and controlled using Ankush weapons, exacerbating her foot rot and arthritis.
A veterinary report noted psychological distress, while a separate inspection revealed her confinement in an unsanitary shed, with overgrown and infected foot pads. Dr. Rakesh Chittora’s findings confirmed severe nail overgrowth, abscesses, and signs of prolonged chaining. It was further contended that ownership under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 does not vest absolute rights, and custodianship must comply with statutory welfare obligations.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that the HPC had engaged in a “meticulous, indepth and careful examination of various submissions made by parties of conflicting interests.” The Committee’s findings were anchored in evidence such as the Joint Inspection Report, the Chief Wildlife Warden’s report, and photographic documentation submitted by PETA. The Court accepted the HPC’s conclusion that the elephant, Mahadevi, was suffering from multiple health issues, including “decubital ulcerated wounds,” “severe foot rot,” and psychological trauma resulting from inadequate and unsanitary living conditions.
While rejecting the Petitioner’s contention that Mahadevi’s condition had improved, the Court held, “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.” It further noted that there was no plausible explanation offered for Mahadevi’s injuries, which were likely caused by the burden of howdahs during ceremonial processions. The Court described such handling of the elephant during ceremonial events as “callous and brutal.”
In addressing the claim based on Article 25 of the Constitution, the Court asserted that animal welfare must prevail over religious usage when a conflict arises. It held, “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.”
Finally, the Bench concluded by invoking the words of conservationist 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.”
The decision of the Court
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the rule. It directed the transfer of the elephant Mahadevi to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order. The Court further directed the Chief Wildlife Warden of Maharashtra to issue the requisite Transport Permit and requested the Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat to provide a No Objection Certificate, if necessary. Police assistance was also directed to ensure smooth execution of the transfer.
Case Title: Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: Interim Application (ST) No.21808 of 2025
Coram: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale and Justice Revati Mohite Dere
Advocate for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Surel Shah, Advocates Manoj Patil and Kalyani Mangave
Advocate for Respondent: Advocates Jatin Kochar, Ninan Thikekar, Karan Singh Shekhawat, Additional Government Pleader AI Patel, Assistant Government Pleader SS Bhende, Advocates Shardul Singh, Smeet Savla, Vishal Kanade, Prateek Pai, Sita Kapadia, and Arunima Athavale
Picture Source :
