Bombay High Court orders transfer of elephant Mahadevi from Kolhapur Jain Math to Ambani’s Vantara rescue forest, prioritizing animal welfare over religious custody rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court has upheld the High Power Committee’s (HPC) directive to transfer the elephant Mahadevi to the Vantara Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT) in Jamnagar, Gujarat, a rescue and rehabilitation centre supported by Reliance Industries.
The case, titled Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak v UOI & Ors, arose from a writ petition filed by the Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, a Jain Math in Kolhapur, which had kept Mahadevi in its custody since 1992 and claimed that the elephant was central to its religious practices. The Math argued that Mahadevi’s removal would infringe upon its Article 25 right to religious freedom.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner is the registered owner of the elephant in question, holding Certificate No. MH/04/02KLP/203 issued under the Wildlife (Protection) (Maharashtra) (Amendment) Rules, 2004. Officials from Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 regularly inspected the elephant at the Petitioner’s premises.
On a complaint filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the High Power Committee (HPC) passed an ex parte order on 28th December 2023, directing the transfer of the elephant to the Vantara Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT). The Petitioner challenged this in Writ Petition No. 3713 of 2024. On 13th March 2024, the Court directed the HPC to reconsider the Petitioner’s representation dated 7th February 2024 after hearing all stakeholders, and in the interim, stayed the elephant’s transfer.
Following this, a sub-committee of the HPC inspected the Petitioner’s premises on 12th June and 29th September 2024 and submitted reports. Based on these reports, the HPC issued another transfer order on 27th December 2024. This was again challenged in the present writ petition.
On 28th April 2025, the Court directed the HPC to once again hear the Petitioner and reconsider its representation. PETA’s application for intervention was also allowed.
Subsequently, on 17th May 2025, the Petitioner was granted a hearing by the HPC. After considering all submissions and evidence, including the Petitioner’s medical records and the inspection reports, the HPC, by order dated 3rd June 2025, again directed the elephant’s transfer to RKTEWT.
This third order was also challenged through an amendment to the writ petition, which was permitted on 1st July 2025. PETA was added as Respondent No. 7 in the case.
Court’s Analysis
The Bombay High Court, after hearing all parties, including the Petitioner-Math, PETA, the State, the High Power Committee (HPC), and RKTEWT, upheld the HPC’s decision to transfer the elephant Mahadevi to the Vantara facility in Jamnagar, Gujarat.
The Court noted that the HPC had conducted a thorough and balanced evaluation of all reports and representations, including veterinary assessments, inspection reports, and photographic evidence. Despite claims of improvement by the Petitioner, the Court found the medical condition of the elephant, including untreated wounds, foot rot, and overgrown nails, indicative of prolonged neglect. The measures taken by the Math were considered superficial and insufficient.
The Court said,
“The only fathomable culprit can be the howdrah 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 equipments.”
The Court dismissed the Petitioner’s reliance on Article 25 (freedom of religion), holding that religious rights do not override animal welfare, citing Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja. It emphasized the elephant’s right to a dignified and healthy life under the doctrine of parens patriae.
The Vantara sanctuary was described as a specialized facility with proper care, a natural environment, and expert staff, a “godsent” alternative for Mahadevi. The Court acknowledged concerns about PETA’s role but concluded that no other suitable facility exists in Maharashtra, making Vantara the most viable and compassionate option. The Court stated,
“We deem it appropriate to record that we have considered and chosen 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. We have no doubt that the Petitioner-Math may have had no deliberate intent to cause injury to the elephant however, 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.”
Quoting The Elephant Whisperer, the Court reaffirmed its duty to protect voiceless animals and ordered Mahadevi’s transfer within two weeks. It directed the Wildlife Wardens of Maharashtra and Gujarat to facilitate the move and asked local police to assist.
The petition was dismissed, and all interim applications were disposed of.
Parties to the Petition:
Petitioner: Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha
Respondent: Union of India, HPC, Chief Wildlife Warden & Principal Chief Conservator of Forest of the Maharashtra State, the Chief Forest Conservator (Regional), Kolhapur, and the Deputy Forest Conservator, Kolhapur, Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT), PETA
Appearance:
Petitioner:
Mr. Surel Shah, senior counsel with Mr. Manoj Patil & Ms. Kalyani Mangave
Respondent:
Mr. Jatin Kochar with Mr. Ninan Thikekar, i/b. Mr. Karan Singh Shekhawat, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Additional Government Pleader, with Smt. S. S. Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Shardul Singh with Mr. Smeet Savla, for the Respondent No.6.
Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Prateek Pai, Ms. Sita Kapadia, Ms. Arunima Athavale, i/b. Keystone Partners, counsel & Solicitors for the Respondent No.7.
Case Title: Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak v UOI and Ors
WRIT PETITION NO.4965 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on PETA
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
