Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham Vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden, Department of Forests, Government of Tamil Nadu, No.1, Jeenis Road, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015.

¶11

2.Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶12

3.The District Forest Officer and Member Convenor, District Captive Elephant Welfare Committee, Near Circuit House, Master Plan Complex, Viluppuram.

¶13

4.The District Forest Officer, Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.

¶14

Page 1 of 21

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶17

5.The Authorised Officer/ Forest Officer M.R.Palayam Elephant Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, M.R.Palayam, Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶18

Respondent(s)

¶19

PRAYER

¶20

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent authorities to forthwith renew the licence/ownership certificate in favour of the petitioner Mutt in respect of its three elephants, namely Sandhya, Indu and Jayanthi, in accordance with the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephant (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 and consequently direct the 1^st respondent authorities to translocate and hand over custody of the said elephants to the petitioner Mutt, by shifting them from the Elephant Care Facility at M.R.Palayam, Trichy, to the petitioner’s newly constructed elephant care facility at Konerikuppam Village, Kanchipuram District, which has been established strictly in compliance with the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephant (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, and is fully equipped for their welfare, medical care, and safe upkeep.

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Selvaraja Additional Government Pleader For Dr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader For R1, R3 to R5 Mr.Karthikeyan For R2 Intervenor: Mr.S.Muralidharan

¶22

Page 2 of 21

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner before this Court is a Hindu Religious Mutt. It traces its spiritual lineage to Adi Shankara and has been in centuries. In fulfilment of its religious mission, which has been directed to carry-out by its preceptor, the petitioner is administering Temples, Veda Patasalas, Sanskrit Centres, and other Hindu Religious Institutions.

¶27

In furtherance of its religious activities, the Mutt decided to acquire elephants, which are essential for the performance of its religious duties. Consequently, the petitioner acquired three elephants, namely, Sandhya, Indu and Jayanthi. The petitioner applied for and obtained ownership certificates under the relevant Rules framed under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 from the Chief Wildlife Warden. On and from the date of acquisition, the animals had been used by the writ petitioner for rituals, festivals, ‘vishwaroopa’ darshan, and other connected activities. The petitioner claims that elephants hold a spiritual and rituals significance in Hinduism and they symbolise the divine attributes of Lord Vinayaka.

¶28

The petitioner states that it had appointed a Mahout to take care of the animals. However, the said Mahout died in 2015. Hence, the Mutt applied for and obtained permission to transport the animals to a wildlife rescue and

¶29

Page 3 of 21

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶32

rehabilitation centre.

¶33

Coming to know of this transfer, the intervenor moved this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.6030 of 2019. He sought for a direction to the 1^st respondent to close the illegal elephants shelter operating at Kurumparai Village, Marakkanam Taluk, Villupuram District by the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). This proceeding was taken on file by this Court and notice was issued to all the parties.

¶34

After hearing all the parties before it, this Court passed an order on 19.09.2019 to the following effect.

¶35

“55. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the positive recommendation as to the translocation of the three female captive elephants from the temporary custody of the 5th respondent to the Elephant Care Facility at MR Palayam Elephant Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre at Trichy, cannot be faulted with.

¶36

56. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of and the State Level Committee, in the light of the recommendation made by the District Level Captive Elephants Welfare Committee, Villupuram, shall take appropriate action as to the translocation / transfer of the three female captive elephants from the elephant care facility of the 5th respondent to the Elephant Care Facility

¶37

Page 4 of 21

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶40

at MR Palayam Elephant Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre at Trichy, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such transfer/translocation, the said Entity / Elephant Care Facility at MR Palayam Elephant Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre at Trichy, shall comply with the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants [Management and Maintenance] Rules, 2011. It is once again made clear that the three elephants shall be kept together in the said facility. The first respondent shall also file periodical Status Reports before this Court. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶41

This order was challenged by the respondents 5 and 6 to the said writ petition before the Supreme Court of India. This petition in S.L.P.(C).No.25677 of 2019 came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 03.11.2022.

¶42

Subsequently, on 08.04.2022, the writ petitioner approached the Head of the Forest Force seeking his permission to translocate the three elephants from the M.R.Palayam Rescue Centre to its centre at Konerikuppam Village in Kanchipuram District. The basis for this request was that, the petitioner had established a facility at the aforesaid Village, which is in compliance with all requirements prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management

¶43

Page 5 of 21

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶46

and Maintenance) Rules, 2011.

¶47

The petitioner asserted that, in order to ensure compliance with the said

¶48

Rules, it has employed Mahouts to take care of the animals, once they are translocated. Despite this representation, there was no response from the State respondents. The petitioner thereafter moved the respondents through its legal adviser by way of a Communication dated 06.01.2023. Despite the same, the respondents maintained a sphinx-like silence. The petitioner thereafter made a detailed representation stating that the facility at Konerikuppam Village has the following facilities:

¶49

(1) Naturalistic open enclosures with mud floors and shaded areas;

¶50

(2) Fresh water ponds and grazing areas;

¶51

(3) Separate resting shelters with adequate ventilation;

¶52

(4) Round-the-clock mahout supervision;

¶53

(5) In-house veterinary facilities and provision for periodic medical check-ups;

¶54

(6) Nutritious feeding arrangements; and

¶55

(7) Facilities for enrichment, exercise, and free movement.

¶56

The petitioner accordingly renewed its request for translocation. As no positive

¶57

response was received from the respondents, the petitioner is now before this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶58

Page 6 of 21

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶61

I heard Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the writ

¶62

petitioner, Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on

¶63

behalf of the respondents 1, 3 to 5 and Mr.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent on 05.12.2025.

¶64

Since Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan asserted that the Konerikuppam facility is in compliance with the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder, I directed the 1^st respondent to constitute a team to inspect the Konerikuppam Village and to submit a report, as to whether the said facility conforms to the statutory requirements.

¶65

Pursuant to this direction, the Committee inspected the writ

¶66

petitioner's facility on 09.12.2025. Based on the inspection so conducted, the Committee pointed out the following deficiencies:

¶67

“ 4. Summary of Major Deficiencies Identified :

¶68

1. Mandatory mahout and cavady

¶69

identification/selection/ appointments not completed.

¶70

2. Required numbers of concrete shelters with mandated height, ventilation, and flooring not provided.

¶71

3. Bathing pool does not meet minimum size or

¶72

Page 7 of 21

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶75

structural safety requirements.

¶76

4. Exercise and walking area is non-functional and severely inadequate.

¶77

5. Improper drainage causing water stagnation around shelters.

¶78

6. Absence of adequate natural shade and tethering trees for summer protection.”

¶79

When the aforesaid deficiencies were pointed out to Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, he submitted that, post the inspection by the District Level Elephants Welfare Committee, the writ petitioner had appointed three Mahouts to take care of the animals and these Mahouts would also bring along with them cavadis to assist them in the performance of their duties.

¶80

With respect to the remaining defects, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan pleaded that if sufficient time were granted, he would address the same by 15.12.2025. In consideration of his plea, I called upon Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan to rectify the defects and instructed him to inform the Committee to carry out a re-inspection of the facility. This order was passed on 15.12.2025; I posted the matter for hearing today.

¶81

When I took up the matter for hearing, Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader representing Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Page 8 of 21

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶83

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶84

Government Pleader, produced the following report, which is scanned and extracted hereunder:

¶85

Page 9 of 21

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶88

A counter affidavit has also been filed stating that the facility is in compliance with the Rules. However, Mr.C.Selvaraj, pointed out that one Dr.M.Sivachandran, M.V.Sc, Forest Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Elephant

¶89

Page 10 of 21

¶90

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶91

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶92

Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, M.R.Palayam, Tiruchirappalli – 621 104 has

¶93

stated as follows:

¶94

Page 11 of 21

¶95

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶96

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶97

On receipt of this report, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan has produced the opinion of one Dr.Kandasamy, Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Ayyampettai, Kanchipuram District to the following effect:

¶98

Page 12 of 21

¶99

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶100

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶101

Page 13 of 21

¶102

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶103

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶104

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is the owner of the animals. The petitioner applied to the Forest Department and obtained certificates of the ownership of the animals in terms of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The certificates have been renewed from time to time and are currently in force. These certificates conclusively establish that the petitioner is the owner of the three elephants, namely, Sandhya, Indu, and Jayanthi.

¶105

The reason for which the animals were taken away from the custody of the petitioner and the NGOs and handed over to the Forest Department have been set forth in detail in W.P.No.6030 of 2019. Hence, it does not require any reiteration here. The petitioner did not have adequate facilities at that point of time, and the NGOs did not have the necessary permissions from the Forest Department to maintain the animals in their centres. Realising that, unless and until they have a facility in compliance with the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, the petitioner has developed an area, at a distance of three Kilometres from its Headquarters of the writ petitioner at Konerikuppam Village in Kanchipuram District.

¶106

The proceedings of the Committee appointed by the 1^st respondent have certified that the area, which has been identified by the petitioner is fit

¶107

Page 14 of 21

¶108

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶109

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶110

enough to accommodate the three animals. The only reason standing in way of the Forest Department from returning the animals to the writ petitioner is the opinion of Dr.M.Sivachandran, which has been extracted hereinabove. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan states that the opinion is based on an impression that the animals would be taken to the Temple for ritual purposes. He gives a categorical undertaking on behalf of the writ petitioner that until the animals are certified to be fit enough to travel outside the Konerikuppam facility, the animals shall not be taken to the temple but will be retained within the facility. In addition, he states that the Gaja Pooja would also be performed at the facility itself.

¶111

In terms of the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, two Committees are contemplated: one at the State Level and the other at the District Level. The District Level Committee is called upon to inspect the records that has been maintained as per the rules and to submit its recommendation to the State Level Committee. Furthermore, the District Level Committee is called upon for a review the welfare and maintenance of the captive elephants once in three months.

¶112

The learned counsel appearing on both sides are agreeable that if a direction is issued to the District Level Captive Elephant Welfare Committee to

¶113

Page 15 of 21

¶114

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶115

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶116

inspect the facility and to review the welfare and maintenance of the elephants once in a month, the same would subserve the ends of justice. Though Rules contemplate such review once in three months, if a higher norm is fixed, through an order of the Court, it would be more than in compliance with the Rules.

¶117

Mr.S.Muralidharan, the intervenor, points out that in addition to the Doctors in the Committee, namely, Dr.M.Sivachandran and Dr.Sridharan, there is another expert, Dr.Kalaivanan, M.V.Sc, an employee of the Forest Department who is an expert in elephants. Hence, there shall be a direction to the Forest Department to depute Dr.Kalaivanan to inspect the three elephants once in three month and certify on their health. Once the veterinary experts certify that the animals are fit enough to travel outside the facility, the elephants can be taken to the temple for the performance of the Gaja Pooja and other religious activity.

¶118

I should point out that the performance of Gaja Pooja and the usage of elephants in the Hindu religious rituals would come within the scope of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Usage of elephants in such rituals is prevalent across the Country. It would be covered under Article 26, Sub-Clauses (b) and (c). The rights under Article 26 are subject to public order, morality and

¶119

Page 16 of 21

¶120

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶121

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶122

health. The word ‘Health’ under Article 26 should not be confined solely to human beings but should also be extended to animals, which have been used in the rituals. Only such an interpretation would be in compliance with Article 48A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶123

Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India directed in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and others, [(2012) 3 SCC 277], that law should move from an anthropocentric position to an ecocentric position. Taking inspiration from the observation made in the judgment in Paragraph No.17, the aforesaid direction is given, permitting the elephants to be taken out from the facility only after their health is restored and duly certified by any one of the three Doctors named herein above.

¶124

In light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition stands disposed of on the following terms:

¶125

(1) The respondents 1, 3 to 5 shall hand over the custody of the three elephants, namely, Sandhya, Indu and Jayanthi, to the writ petitioner within a period of one week from today.

¶126

(2) The animals may be transported utilising the vehicles owned by the Forest Department. In such an event, the petitioner shall bear the costs of such transportation.

¶127

Page 17 of 21

¶128

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶129

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶130

(3) The animals should not be moved out of the Konerikuppam facility till they are restored to their health. The restoration to health must be duly certified by any one of the three Doctors, namely, Dr.Kalaivanan (M.V.Sc), Dr.Sridharan (M.V.Sc), or Dr.M.Sivachandran, (M.V.Sc) or by any other expert in elephant welfare and employed by the Forest Department.

¶131

(4) The writ petitioner is at liberty to perform the Gaja Pooja and other religious rituals in the Konerikuppam facility itself. The petitioner will be entitled to move the elephants to the temple and other areas, upon obtaining certification as contemplated in the Clause (3).

¶132

(5) The District Welfare Committee of the Captive Elephants shall inspect the animals and the facility once a month till the animals are restored to their full health, and thereafter once in three months, in terms of Rule 14(3) of Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011. Dr.Kalaivanan, during tri-monthly inspection shall accompany the team and inspect the animals.

¶133

(6) The petitioner shall apply for the necessary permits for the translocation within a period of three days from today. On receipt

¶134

of the said application, the appropriate authority shall grant the

¶135

Page 18 of 21

¶136

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶137

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶138

requisite permission. While granting the permissions, the conditions imposed through this order may also be included in the transit permission.

¶139

(7) The expenses incurred by the Forest Department for the translocation shall be duly reimbursed by the writ petitioner immediately upon the production of the bills.

¶140

The parties are directed to act on the web copy of this order and need not wait for the certified copy. No costs.

¶141

07-01-2026

¶142

(1/2)

¶143

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶144

Jeni

¶145

Page 19 of 21

¶146

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶147

WP No. 47905 of 2025

¶148

To

¶149

1.The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Chief Wildlife Warden, Department of Forests, Government of Tamil Nadu, No.1, Jeenis Road, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015.

¶150

2.The Commissioner Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

¶151

3.The District Forest Officer And Member Convenor District Captive Elephant Welfare Committee, Near Circuit House, Master Plan Complex, Viluppuram.

¶152

4.The District Forest Officer Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.

¶153

5.The Authorised Officer/ Forest Officer M.R.Palayam Elephant Rescue And Rehabilitation Centre, M.R.Palayam , Manachanallur Taluk, Trichy District.

¶154

Page 20 of 21

¶155

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis