The Madras High Court has set aside directions that effectively sought to stop temples in Tamil Nadu from acquiring elephants and contemplated shifting captive elephants to government rehabilitation camps. At the same time, the Division Bench upheld all directions specifically concerning the welfare and treatment of an elephant named Lalitha.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan delivered the judgment on September 2, 2026, in W.A.(MD) Nos. 979 and 848 of 2023.
Background of the Case
Lalitha, a female elephant purchased in 2000 by S.G.M. Shaa alias Sheik Mohammed, became the centre of the litigation after the Forest Department rejected his request to transfer her ownership in March 2020.
In 2023, after Lalitha suffered repeated falls and was found with multiple wounds and injuries, the Single Judge passed several directions concerning her treatment, retirement, mahout and surroundings. The order, however, also directed State authorities to inspect temple and privately owned elephants and instructed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to tell temples not to acquire elephants.
The Tiruchendur temple, which maintains another female elephant, Deivanai, and the State Government challenged these wider directions.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had travelled beyond the dispute before the Court. The original writ petition concerned Lalitha and the rejection of her ownership-transfer request. No temple or representative of temples had been made a party or heard on the wider policy question.
The Bench observed:
“A court cannot grant a relief that no party has asked for, particularly when granting it visits consequences on persons who were never given a chance to be heard.”
The Court also examined the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011. It noted that the Rules already regulate matters including permission for receiving donated elephants, housing, feeding, working conditions, retirement and welfare inspections.
The Bench further said the earlier First Bench order relied upon by the Single Judge was aimed at preventing fresh capture of elephants from the wild. It did not direct removal of elephants already kept by temples or prohibit donation of an already captive elephant to a temple.
Decision
The High Court set aside the directions requiring inspection of all temple and privately owned elephants, treating the earlier First Bench order as a prohibition on further acquisition, considering shifting captive elephants to government rehabilitation camps, and directing all temples not to acquire elephants.
However, the Court affirmed the directions specifically concerning Lalitha, including her custody, medical treatment, retirement at 60, continuation of her mahout and assistant, access for the animal welfare volunteer and protection from noise pollution.
The two writ appeals were accordingly allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.
