‘Cannot Be Mute Spectator’: Supreme Court Orders Kerala Govt to Take Custody of Elephant Raman
Supreme Court orders Kerala to take custody of elephant Raman
The Supreme Court has said it cannot be a mute spectator, particularly in matters concerning voiceless animals, whose wellbeing is of paramount importance. The court has directed the Kerala government to take over the custody of an elephant named 'Raman', which is claimed to belong to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma held Krishnankutty guilty of contempt of court for retaining custody of the elephant on the basis of a contested Will and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000.
"It is truly unfortunate that the elephant in question i.e., 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, that too on the strength of an undertaking made before this court," the Bench said.
Also Read| Elephant’s Right to Dignity Over Rituals: Courts Uphold Vantara Sanctuary as Custodian of Mahadevi
Court found that Krishnankutty wilfully disobeyed an undertaking given before it and allowed Raman to participate in temple and commercial activities despite a subsisting court order prohibiting such use.
"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 Bench observed.
Court was dealing with a contempt petition filed by Jayakrishna Menon, who alleged that Krishnankutty had wilfully violated orders passed by the Supreme Court on August 6 and August 21, 2025.
What is the dispute over elephant Raman?
The dispute concerns the captive elephant, Raman. According to the contempt petitioner, Raman belongs to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and had only been temporarily entrusted to Krishnankutty for upkeep and care.
It was alleged that Krishnankutty subsequently retained custody of the elephant unlawfully and claimed ownership based on allegedly forged and fabricated gift deeds dated February 18 and February 28, 2017.
Also Read| "Allow good things to happen in the country," Supreme Court on SIT clean chit to Vantara
The petitioner further argued that even if the gift deeds were otherwise valid between the parties, any transfer of ownership would be void without the requisite approval under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
On the other hand, Krishnankutty maintained that Raman had been lawfully transferred to him through the gift deeds and that he had been caring for and maintaining the elephant for the past 10 to 12 years.
He also contended that the elephant was not used for any commercial or temple activities after the undertaking recorded before the Supreme Court. According to him, the photographs, social media posts and posters relied upon by the petitioner were either old material predating the court's order or publicity content circulated independently by temple authorities that did not establish Raman's actual participation in public events after the court's directions.
Why did the Supreme Court hold Krishnankutty guilty of contempt?
The Supreme Court noted that the dispute had a chequered history and had travelled through the trial court and the high court in multiple rounds of litigation.
The trial court had, on December 18, 2023, granted interim custody of Raman to the petitioner upon execution of a bond worth Rs 25 lakh. The order was challenged before the high court, which remanded the matter for fresh consideration. These orders are presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and are yet to be finally decided.
Also Read| Supreme Court stays Kerala HC guidelines to protect elephants paraded during festivals
In the meantime, the apex court had passed several interim orders to safeguard Raman's health and well-being. It had directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests or the senior-most wildlife conservation officer to inspect the elephant and assess its condition. A clear undertaking was also given that Raman would not be used for temple or commercial activities.
However, Court noted that a report submitted by state authorities revealed that Raman, while remaining in musth, had been taken to participate in a temple festival near Chavakkad.
Significantly, Krishnankutty himself admitted that the elephant had been used in a procession linked to temple activities.
"Thus, it is evidently clear that the elephant in question i.e., 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 Bench held.
What directions has the Supreme Court issued for Raman's custody?
Considering that the issue of custody is yet to be finally adjudicated and keeping in mind Raman's health and overall well-being, the Supreme Court directed the State of Kerala to immediately take over custody of the elephant and house it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre.
Court clarified that the arrangement is temporary and will remain subject to the final orders passed in the pending appeals concerning interim custody.
"The State of Kerala may also proceed to temporarily care for the elephant at its own expense, in which case, it may pass appropriate administrative orders in accordance with the statutory safeguards enshrined under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972," Court ordered.
The Bench, however, discharged the state authorities from the contempt proceedings. It noted that they had made efforts to conduct a medical inspection of Raman in November 2025, but were unable to do so because the elephant continued to remain in musth. The inspection was eventually carried out on February 3, 2026.
Case Title: Jayakrishna Menon Vs Krishnankutty & Ors
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma
Date of Judgment: June 09, 2026