Madras High Court quashes ban on temple elephant acquisition
Madras HC sets aside 2023 order barring Tamil Nadu temples from acquiring elephants, citing lack of hearing and existing legal framework.
The Madras High Court has overturned a single judge's directive that prohibited temples in Tamil Nadu from acquiring elephants and required the state government to consider moving all captive elephants to rehabilitation centres.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan set aside the February 27, 2023 order on Wednesday, September 2, 2026. The Bench allowed writ appeals filed by the Tiruchendur Subramaniaswamy Temple management and the state government.
The court observed that the earlier order could not be sustained because it was passed without hearing the state or the affected temples. "However well-intentioned a court order may be, it cannot be sustained if it is passed against persons who were strangers to the proceedings and who had no opportunity to place their case before the court," the Bench wrote.
The case originated from a 2020 writ petition that allowed a private individual, S.G.M. Shaa alias Sheik Mohamed of Theni, to keep a female elephant named Lalitha in his custody despite the Forest Department's refusal. When Lalitha suffered a fall in 2023, the single judge visited her and revived the petition the next day, issuing broad directions on all temple elephants.
The Division Bench upheld the specific orders regarding Lalitha's upkeep but struck down the general directions. It noted that the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, framed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, already provide a comprehensive framework for the possession, care, and retirement of captive elephants, including those held by temples. Rule 3 of these rules explicitly permits temples to receive donated elephants.
The court emphasised that subordinate legislation has the force of law and cannot be overridden by a judicial direction in an individual case unless the rules themselves are challenged. "A court cannot, in the course of deciding an individual case, issue a direction that has the practical effect of overriding such Rule, without the Rules themselves being under challenge," the Bench observed.