Kerala High Court
Vanitha.G vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
WP(PIL) NO. 25 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:32840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(PIL) NO. 25 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
VANITHA.G,
AGED 41 YEARS
ADVOCATE K/617-D/2006, NO.16 A, LAKSHMI VILLA, GATE 1,
CHANDRANAGAR COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678 007
BY ADV SARATH M.S.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST
AND CLIMATE CHANGE (WILDLIFE DIVISION), INDIRA PARYAVARAN
BHAVAN, JOR BAGH ROAD, NEW DELHIEMAIL: [email protected],
PIN - 110003
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,, KERALA FOREST
DEPARTMENT, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 HIGH POWER COMMITTEE
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
TRIPURA AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, CHIEF WILD LIFE WARDEN,
FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EMAIL: [email protected], PIN - 695014
4 VANTARA
RPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER THROUGH RADHE KRISHNATEMPLE
ELEPHANT WELFARE TRUST 'VRAJ', OPP. HDFC BANK, BESIDE
CHANDANBALA TOWERS, NEAR SUVIDHA SHOPPING CENTRE, JAMNAGAR,
GUJARAT EMAIL:[email protected], PIN - 361140
THIS WRIT PETITION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) HAVING BEEN HEARD
ON 16.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(PIL) NO. 25 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:32840
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
Through this Writ Petition filed in public interest the
petitioner has sought directions against the respondents
restraining them from permitting any transfer of elephants from
the State of Kerala to any place outside the State of Kerala
including Respondent No. 4 Vantara / Radhe Krishna Temple
Elephant Welfare Trust, without prior permission from this
Court. The Petitioner also seeks a clarification on the scope of
the remit of the Respondent No.3 - High Powered Committee
functioning as per Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, With
further directions to the State of Kerala to formulate and notify
an elephant protection policy barring inter-state transfers,
much less inquiry into the transfers of Elephants made to
Respondent No. 4 from the year 2020 till date.
2. The basis of this Petition are news articles and news
stories published in online and offline modes by platforms and
publishers being National News, Deccan Herald, Himal South
Asian and Down to Earth. Based on the contents of these news
articles and news stories the Petitioner has contended that
Elephants from Kerala are at risk of being transferred to
2025:KER:32840
Respondent No. 4 based in Gujarat under the pretext of rescue
or welfare.
3. Relying on the article / story published on 14th June
2024 and dated 21st January 2025 on the platform National
News, the Petitioner contends that serious questions have been
raised about the legality of the Respondent No.4, the public
outcry has arisen in the manner of transfers made to
RespondentNo.4. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 4 has
operationalized a website calling upon world at large to report
abuse or distress of animals with a view to amass more
Elephants by portraying certain elephants as mistreated or in
need of rescue.
4. Relying upon a story / article dated 20th March
2024published by platform Himal South Asia it is alleged that
Respondent No. 3 - HPC has failed to carry out its functions and
questions have been raised about institutional objectivity and
independence of the Respondent No. 3 -HPC. It is alleged that
the formation of Respondent No. 3 -HPC was for a limited
purpose which has come to an end especially with the advent of
the newly notified Captive Elephant (Transfer and Transport)
Rules, 2024.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and
2025:KER:32840
perused the various articles and reports annexed to the Petition.
Apart from the various articles and reports annexed to the
Petition no other material has been placed before us.
6. It is not the case of the Petitioner that any specific
decision of the Respondent No.3 - HPC is not in accordance with
law, nor that any transfer of Elephants to the Respondent No. 4
is not in accordance with the law or made without permission
from the Respondent No. 3 - HPC. Relying on the various
articles and reports annexed to the Petition the Petitioner is
questioning the functioning of the HPC and the transfers of
Elephants to RespondentNo.4. and amassing Elephants under
the garb of rescuing them.
7. On a prima facie reading of the various articles and
reports annexed to the Petition, we are not persuaded that the
contents of these publications requires any inquiry in particular.
The article published by Himal South Asia, as referred to above,
appears to cast unwarranted aspersions on the functioning of
Respondent No. 3 - the High-Powered Committee (HPC). Such
insinuations, in our view, are on the verge of being
contemptuous. It must be noted that the jurisdiction of the HPC
has been expanded to a pan-India level by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The HPC is chaired by a former Judge of the Supreme
2025:KER:32840
Court and comprises ex officio members who hold the highest
offices in the Central and State Governments. To suggest that
the actions or decisions of such a body lack objectivity or
independence, without any cogent material is not only
conjectural, unfair but borders on irresponsible commentary.
The Chairperson and members of the HPC under the Order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court discharge an important function,
and to undermine their integrity based merely on surmises
however appealing, does not amount to fair irresponsible
reporting.
8. Insofar as Courts are concerned, it is well settled that
reliance on newspaper articles, journalistic reports, or opinion
pieces without the support of cogent and legally admissible
evidence is impermissible. The legal position on this issue is
now firmly established and no longer res-integra. Courts are
required to act on material that meets the threshold of
evidentiary reliability, and speculative or editorial content,
however widely circulated or rhetorically persuasive, cannot
form the basis for judicial intervention.
9. We have gone through the judgement of the Tripura
High Court under which the Respondent No. 3 - HPC was first
formed. At this stage to consider the Petitioner's allegation of
2025:KER:32840
amassing, we only need to reproduce the following paragraphs
of the judgment of the Tripura High Court:-
"24. The respondent No. 3 place strong reliance on the
order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the Karnataka High Court
to state that the Court found theTrust to be a bonafide Trust
carrying out a laudable object. Respondent No. 3 has
specifically brought to our attention the following paragraph
of the said order:
"19. The Petitioner's case about preference being given to
Respondent No. 3 Trust and its capability required
attention. We have gone through the Counter and the
presentation submitted across the Bar. We have also
perused photographs of the Elephants themselves and the
facilities of the Respondent No. 3 Trust. We are satisfied
that the Respondent No. 3 is a bonafide Trust which is
carrying out a laudable object. To satisfy our conscience, we
intend to bind the Respondent No. 3 to its statements made
in the Counter and also across the Bar and give directions in
this regard at the end of our judgment."
25. While we are broadly in agreement with the
submissions of the respondent No. 3and find such
allegations of the petitioner to be totally speculative and
unsupported by any material, at the same time, we believe
that sunlight is the best disinfectant and, therefore, we
propose to pass certain directions in this regard which
could very well clear the air either way. We are of the view
that it would be in the interest of all concerned, especially
the Elephants and perhaps even for the Trust if a detailed
verification by a body of competent persons and experts is
carried out as we propose to do by this order."
10. It is pertinent to note that the Tripura High Court,
while considering similar allegations, found no merit in the
same. Nevertheless, in the interest of transparency, the Court
directed the constitution of Respondent No. 3 - HPC. The said
judgment was not only upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
but the jurisdiction and remit of the HPC was expanded to cover
2025:KER:32840
the entire country. In light of the considered observations of the
Tripura High Court, as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
we are of the view that the allegations made in the present
Petition, as well as the contents of the articles and reports
annexed thereto, are wholly unsubstantiated and devoid of
merit.
11. On the submission that the tenure or purpose for which
the Respondent No. 3 - HPC was formed, has come to an end,
we find no merit in the submission of the Petitioner. Incidentally
this Court had an occasion to examine a similar question in Writ
Petition (C) No. 31 of 2025 and this Court held as under:-
12. According to us it is clear that the HPC power and
jurisdiction to deal with all applications for transfer of
grievances in that regard on a "Pan India" basis
which includes the State of Kerala. If any such application for
transfer of any Elephant in the State of Kerala is made to the
HPC or any grievance is raised before the HPC by any person,
then the HPC is required to decide such application or
grievance and take decisions and issue necessary directions in
accordance with law. Such decisions or directions of the HPC
are bound to be complied with by all authorities. The same is
the purport of the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
2025:KER:32840
they must be complied with in both letter and spirit.
13. In view of the above the legal position, that any person
/institution who is the owner/ custodian of an
Elephant/Elephants and desires to transfer outside the State of
Kerala for any lawful object or purpose or transfer it to any
rescue facility such as that of Respondent No. 4, such owner /
custodian can make the said application to the Respondent No.
3 -HPC which, it is needless to observe, is required to decide
the said application in accordance with law having regard to all
applicable rules and regulations holding the field.
Public Interest Litigation sans merit, accordingly, dismissed.
sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
sd/-
sab P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
2025:KER:32840
APPENDIX OF WP(PIL) 25/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE
NATIONAL NEWS DATED 14TH JUNE
2024(REPORTED BY TANIYA DUTTA)
Exhibit 2 COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED BY DOWN TO
EARTH DATED 14.5.2024(REPORTED BY ANUPAM
CHAKRAVARTTY)
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE
DECCAN HERALD DATED 21.1.2025
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED ON 20.3
2024 BY HIMAL SOUTH ASIAN SUPPORTED BY
PULITZER CENTER
Exhibit P5 . COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED BY DOWN
TO EARTH DATED 6.5.2024
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2022OF THE
TRIPURA HIGH COURT 2022 SCC ONLINE TRI
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.3.2023 OF
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2023 SCC ONLINE
SC 224
