Supreme Court orders establishment of elephant clinics, periodic health check-up for captive elephants

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Union government to issue guidelines and coordinate with States to establish elephant clinics with specialised facilities, where owners of captive elephants will be required to take them for periodic health check-ups.

The Court further directed that a medical record be maintained for every captive elephant.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the directives while considering a 2014 PIL concerning the captivity, trafficking, treatment and rehabilitation of elephants across India.

“We direct the Union of India to issue mandatory guidelines, as required, and take up the matter with the concerned States to introduce an effective and transparent mechanism regarding the establishment of elephant clinics with specialised facilities, where it shall be compulsorily prescribed for all owners of captive elephants to take the elephants for periodic check-ups. A medical record of each captive elephant shall be duly maintained and the monitoring committee shall ensure that treatment, wherever required, is provided regularly,” the Court ordered. 

Among other key directives, the Court ordered the Captive Elephant Health Care and Welfare Committee - formed under Project Elephant and constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) - to submit a report on the status of measures it has been proposing for the interest of captive elephants. 

The committee constituted by the Ministry shall lay down minimum standards for housing and upkeep of elephants in captivity, the Court added. 

The Court further sought information on the status of DNA profiling of existing captive elephants in India as well, which is estimated to be over 2,700 at present. 

“We direct the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to submit a comprehensive status report explaining whether DNA profiling of all captive elephants, from those with private individuals to those in rehabilitation centres, has been completed and, if so, whether the same has been duly updated in the database.”

Such DNA profiling of captive elephants is intended to track the movement of such elephants and prevent their illegal transfer. 

The Court today noted that around 1,678 captive elephants are presently with private individuals, 47 with circuses, 96 with temples, 786 with Forest Departments, 63 with zoos and 358 with rehabilitation centres. 

The Court underscored that its focus is on the well-being of such elephants for the present, not its ownership. 

During today’s hearing of the matter, Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for the petitioner and expressed concerns about continuing instances of cruelty against captive elephants. She urged the Court to issue strong directives so that no new elephants are brought into captivity. 

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, representing a temple association and an elephant owners’ association from Kerala, urged the Court to draw a distinction between temple elephants and other captive elephants. 

“Temple-owned elephants are not the same as circus elephants. I am not saying that every captive elephant in Kerala is maintained up to the required standard. But the entirety of temple elephants in Kerala cannot be painted with a broad brush. This is an extremely sensitive issue so far as Kerala is concerned,” he said. 

The Court, in response, clarified that its focus at present would be on whether existing captive elephants are properly taken care of, whether in a temple or elsewhere, and it will not currently examine the issue of whether temples can own and use elephants.

“We are not going into whether a temple can possess an elephant. We are not going into any personal rights or religious rights. What we need to do is harmoniously deal with religious rights and the other laws operating in the field. Let us say that in a temple, an elephant is used for a religious procession. Its use must be regulated in terms of hours,” said Justice Bagchi. 

Senior Advocate Bhat clarified that the petitioner does not aim to bring in any religious slant to the case, but is only concerned with preventing cruelty to elephants.

“We have nothing against any religious practice. If you go to the Dussehra festivals, entire communities participate. The question is what is to be done with these elephants. They cannot simply be sent back into the wild after 60 or 70 years. Most of these elephants are 50 or 60 years old. They cannot simply be sent to rehabilitation centres either, because they may ultimately end up in the hands of one private rehabilitation facility. I want to make it clear that we do not want to give this a religious slant. It is unfortunate that this is being brought into the matter. We are looking strictly at cruelty,” she said. 

The Court, too, agreed that it may not be possible to release elephants that have grown up in captivity into the wild. 

“These elephants may no longer be capable of surviving there (in the wild). Most of them have never been in such an environment,” the Bench observed. 

However, CJI Kant added that the ownership of captive elephants still raises some lingering concerns. He asked whether a mechanism can be put in place to track those who all hold captive elephants and whether they are properly looking after such animals. 

Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati said that she would place details about the available monitoring mechanisms on record. 

As the hearing drew to a close, Senior Advocate Bhat also raised concerns about sources from where captive elephants are procured.

“It (a report) says 80% are of unknown origin and 25% are wild-caught. The government should indicate how many prosecutions under the Wildlife Protection Act have been launched in relation to this 25%,” she said. 

“Many elephants are also found abandoned or injured in the wild. There are district-level committees supervising these elephants,” replied ASG Bhati. 

The Court, in turn, remarked, 

“You worship the elephant. Take care of the elephant. If you balance the two…"

"We are servants of the deity. We respect our God,” assured Senior Advocate Parameshwar:

“This is why we are saying that your submissions should have reflection in real life,” the Court added.

[Live Coverage]