New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held a Kerala resident guilty of contempt of court for violating an undertaking given before it by using a captive elephant in temple-related activities despite a specific assurance that the animal would not be deployed for commercial or religious events during the pendency of a custody dispute.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma found that respondent Krishnankutty had wilfully disobeyed an undertaking recorded by the apex court in August 2025 in a case concerning the custody and welfare of a captive elephant named Raman.
While directing the state government to take temporary custody of the animal pending adjudication of the ownership dispute, the apex court imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on the respondent and ordered him to deposit the amount with the registry within four weeks.
The dispute concerns competing claims to the ownership and custody of Raman, with petitioner Jayakrishna Menon contending that the elephant belongs to the Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and was only temporarily entrusted to Krishnankutty for care and upkeep.
The Supreme Court was dealing with a contempt petition alleging a violation of its orders dated August 6 and August 21, 2025, passed in pending criminal appeals concerning the elephant’s interim custody.
On August 6, 2025, while directing an inspection of Raman’s health and well-being by Kerala’s wildlife authorities, the apex court recorded an undertaking from Krishnankutty that the elephant would not be used for any commercial or temple activities. The petitioner later alleged that despite the undertaking, Raman continued to be used in temple festivals, public processions and other commercial activities.
In support of the allegations, photographs, posters, social media posts and promotional materials were placed on record. Krishnankutty denied the allegations and contended that the materials relied upon by the petitioner either predated the top court’s order or did not establish the elephant’s actual participation in public events after the undertaking was given.
However, he admitted that on one occasion, Raman had been taken to a temple event because another elephant originally scheduled to participate in a ritual was absent.
An unconditional apology was also tendered before the Supreme Court. Examining the record, the Justice Datta-led Bench found that a report submitted by the Kerala authorities revealed that Raman had been brought to Chavakkad on February 3, 2026, for participation in a temple festival, during which a detailed veterinary inspection was subsequently conducted.
The apex court also took note of Krishnankutty’s written submissions, acknowledging that Raman had participated in a temple-linked ritual after emerging from the musth period.
“Thus, it is evidently clear that the elephant in question, Raman, was indeed taken out and used towards ceremonial processions and rituals in defiance of the undertaking made on behalf of Respondent No. 1 before this Court,” the Justice Datta-led Bench observed.
It expressed concern over the elephant’s treatment, describing it as unfortunate that Raman, reportedly the tallest elephant in Kerala, had been subjected to commercial exploitation despite a restraining order.
“We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance. We cannot be a mute spectator, more so in matters pertaining to voiceless animals, whose well-being is also of paramount importance,” the judgment said.
Pending final adjudication of the custody dispute, the Supreme Court directed the Kerala government to take over custody of Raman and house the elephant in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre.
Clarifying that the arrangement would be temporary and subject to the outcome of the pending appeals, the top court said the state authorities may care for the elephant at their own expense in accordance with safeguards under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Holding that Krishnankutty had wilfully violated the undertaking given before the apex court, the Justice Datta-led Bench discharged the state authorities from the contempt proceedings, held that there was no wilful disobedience on their part, and disposed of the contempt petitions.
(IANS)
