The Supreme Court has directed the Kerala Government to take custody of a captive elephant named Raman, believed to be the tallest elephant in the State, and place it in a suitable rescue or rehabilitation centre after finding that the animal was subjected to commercial and temple-related activities in violation of an undertaking given before the Court.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order while holding a Kerala resident guilty of contempt of court for breaching an assurance that Raman would not be used for temple festivals or commercial purposes pending adjudication of a custody dispute.

Emphasising the importance of animal welfare, the Court observed that courts cannot remain indifferent when the rights and well-being of voiceless creatures are at stake.

"It is truly unfortunate that the elephant in question, Raman, who also happens to be the tallest elephant in the State of Kerala, has been subjected to commercial exploitation despite an order restraining such exploitation. 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 wellbeing is also of paramount importance," the Court observed.

The contempt proceedings arose from a long-standing dispute regarding the ownership and custody of Raman. Jayakrishna Menon claimed that the elephant belonged to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and had only been entrusted to Krishnankutty for maintenance and care. Krishnankutty, however, asserted ownership on the basis of gift deeds allegedly executed in his favour in 2017. The issue relating to interim custody of the elephant is presently pending before the Supreme Court in appeals arising from proceedings before Kerala courts.

During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court had on August 6, 2025 directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests or the senior-most wildlife conservation officer in Kerala to inspect the elephant and submit a report regarding its health and well-being. On the same date, counsel appearing for Krishnankutty had given an undertaking before the Court that Raman would not be used for temple festivals or commercial activities.

However, a report submitted by State authorities revealed that when an inspection was eventually conducted on February 3, 2026, Raman had been taken to Chavakkad for participation in a temple festival ceremony. The Court also noted that Krishnankutty admitted in written submissions that the elephant had been used for a temple ritual after another elephant scheduled for the event became unavailable due to illness.

Although Krishnankutty contended that the elephant's presence was intended only to satisfy religious sentiments and not for commercial exploitation, he tendered an unconditional apology if his actions were perceived as violating the Court's orders.

Rejecting the explanation, the Supreme Court held that the undertaking given before the Court had been breached. The Bench observed that Raman had been taken out and used for ceremonial and temple-related activities despite the clear restraint imposed by the Court.

Taking serious note of the violation and prioritising the welfare of the animal, the Court directed the State of Kerala to immediately assume custody of Raman and place it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation facility. The Court clarified that the arrangement would remain temporary and subject to the final outcome of the pending appeals concerning custody of the elephant.

The Bench further directed that the elephant be cared for in accordance with the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, with the State bearing the necessary expenses.

Holding Krishnankutty guilty of contempt of court, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of ₹2,000 and directed him to deposit the amount within four weeks. The Court, however, discharged the State authorities from the contempt proceedings, noting that they had made genuine efforts to conduct a medical examination of the elephant but initially faced difficulties as the animal was in musth.

Case: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty & Ors.