The Supreme Court has held a Kerala resident guilty of contempt of court for violating an undertaking that a captive elephant named Raman would not be used in temple or commercial activities while a custody dispute remained pending before the Court. At the same time, the Court directed the State of Kerala to take temporary custody of the elephant and place it in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation facility.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns ownership and custody claims over Raman, a captive elephant. Jayakrishna Menon claimed that the elephant belonged to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and had only been entrusted to Krishnankutty for care. Krishnankutty, however, maintained that the animal had been lawfully transferred to him through gift deeds and that he had been caring for it for several years.
The issue of interim custody travelled through multiple proceedings before courts in Kerala and eventually reached the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeals, the Court had ordered status quo regarding custody of the elephant.
In August 2025, while considering concerns about the elephant’s welfare, the Supreme Court recorded an undertaking on behalf of Krishnankutty that Raman would not be used for commercial or temple activities until further orders.
Menon later approached the Court alleging that despite the undertaking, Raman continued to be used in temple festivals, public events and other activities. Photographs, promotional materials and social media content were relied upon to support the allegation.
Krishnankutty denied any deliberate violation and argued that much of the material produced was old or did not establish actual participation by the elephant after the Court's order. However, he acknowledged that Raman had been taken to a temple on one occasion and tendered an unconditional apology.
The bench examined a wildlife inspection report and the respondent’s own written submissions. The Court noted that the elephant had been brought to a temple festival near Chavakkad after its musth period ended.
The judges also referred to the respondent’s admission that Raman had been taken for a temple ritual because another elephant scheduled for the event had fallen ill.
Finding the explanation insufficient, the Court observed:
“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 further remarked that courts could not remain indifferent when the welfare of animals was involved and expressed concern over the elephant’s continued use despite the restraint order.
Prioritising the health and well-being of Raman while the custody dispute remains pending, the Supreme Court directed the State of Kerala to take over temporary custody of the elephant and house it in a suitable rescue or rehabilitation centre. The arrangement, the Court clarified, would remain subject to the final outcome of the pending appeals.
The Court held that Krishnankutty had wilfully disobeyed the undertaking given before it and found him guilty of contempt of court. However, considering the circumstances, the bench imposed a fine of ₹2,000 and directed that it be deposited with the Court registry within four weeks.
The Court discharged the state authorities from the contempt proceedings, finding that they had eventually conducted the required inspection and had not wilfully violated the Court's directions.
The contempt petitions were accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty & Others
Case Number: Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 59-60 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4836-4837 of 2024
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Decision Date: 09 June 2026
 Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)-300x169.webp)
