“Priority to elephant’s welfare over use for religious activities,” HC orders transfer of Mahadevi elephant from Kolhapur to Vantara

A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale passed the judgment on a plea by Swasti Shri Jensen Bhattarak, Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, Math (Karveer) Kolhapur. The Math owned the elephant since 1992 as per Wildlife Protection Rules. It has a tradition to use an elephant for religious programmes and its maintenance is an “integral part” of the Trust activities.

The plea sought quashing of two orders—dated December 27, 2024, and June 3, 2025— passed by the high-power committee directing the transfer.

In December 2023, the HPC—on a plea by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA )— passed an order of transfer to RKTWET, after which the Math approached the Bombay High Court.

Express photo/Special arrangement

On March 23, 2024, the HC requested the panel to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation. In the meantime, the authorities were directed to defer the transfer of the elephant and the same was continued even after HPC’s order of transfer of December 27, 2024.

Last month, the HPC considered the grievances again as per court directive and directed transfer of the elephant to RKTWET.

Senior advocate Surel Shah, representing the Math, argued that the HPC’s decision was “illegal, perverse and bad in law”. Shah argued that the HPC overlooked that the elephant was looked after in a proper manner at the Kolhapur Math. Advocates Shardul Singh and Vishal Kanade for RKTWET and PETA respectively opposed the plea.

After perusing submissions, the bench observed that “the HPC has aptly analysed the effects of confinement of an elephant in a religious setting”. The high court added that the HPC has  “duly appreciated the observations of veterinary experts and interpreted legal provisions vis-a-vis the ethical, constitutional and legal framework supporting the protection and rehabilitation of elephants, especially those in captivity.”

Justice Gokhale noted that the petitioner couldn’t explain what caused the elephant’s back injury while it was under Math’s care and custody.

“The only fathomable culprit can be the howdah that may have been placed on the elephant’s back to carry loudspeakers and human beings during processions. This continued treatment of the elephant is callous and brutal. The elephant does not deserve to be used to ferry weighty humans and equipment. Thus, this argument cannot be taken to be a mitigating factor in favour of the petitioner…The cursory health certificates do not inspire confidence,” the judges held.

The Court, while the upholding the HPC’s decision, added that RKTEWT was “suitable to house Mahadevi and provide her with timely and much needed succor.”

The court added that it “considered and chose the survival of the elephant and its right to quality life, over and above the rights of men to use the elephant for religious rites.”

It said that the Math may have had no deliberate intent to cause injury to the elephant. Referring to Lawrence Anthony’s book ‘The Elephant Whisperer’, the court said that it had “parens patriae” duty “to secure rights of the voiceless and hapless Mahadevi.”

“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,” observed the court.