The Supreme Court on Wednesday handed over the custody of elephant Raman to the Kerala government, ruling that it could not remain a mute spectator to the animal's welfare. The court found one Krishnankutty, who had retained custody of the elephant based on a contested will, guilty of contempt for wilfully violating an undertaking given to the apex court.
Court's Observations
A bench of Justices emphasized that the elephant's well-being was paramount and that the court could not ignore the violations. The undertaking was given by Krishnankutty earlier, promising to comply with certain conditions regarding Raman's care. However, the court noted that he had failed to adhere to those commitments, leading to the contempt finding.
Background of the Case
The dispute over Raman, a 50-year-old elephant, had been ongoing for years. Krishnankutty claimed ownership based on a will, but the Kerala government contested this, arguing that the elephant should be under state custody for proper care. The Supreme Court had previously directed that Raman be kept in a designated elephant camp and receive adequate veterinary attention.
- Contempt Proceedings: The court initiated contempt action after reports emerged that Krishnankutty was not following the court's orders.
- Welfare Concerns: Activists and veterinarians had raised alarms about Raman's health, citing inadequate food and medical care.
Supreme Court's Ruling
In its order, the Supreme Court stated: "We cannot be mute spectators to the suffering of an animal. The custody of Raman is hereby transferred to the Kerala government, which shall ensure his proper upkeep and medical treatment." The court also directed the state to submit periodic reports on Raman's condition.
Reactions
The Kerala government welcomed the decision, promising to provide the best possible care for Raman. Animal rights groups also applauded the ruling, calling it a landmark for animal welfare in India. Krishnankutty's legal team indicated they would review the order before deciding on further legal steps.
The case highlights the growing judicial attention to animal rights and the enforcement of court orders regarding animal custody. The Supreme Court's strict action serves as a warning to others who might flout court directives in such matters.
