Supreme Court Elephant Raman Custody Kerala Ownership Dispute Explained

The Supreme Court has asked the Kerala government to take custody of Uttoly Raman, a well-known elephant in the state, and house it in a rehabilitation centre, pending a final decision on its ownership.

“In the given circumstances, where the issue pertaining to the custody of the elephant in question is yet to be decided finally; and with a view to prioritise the health and overall well-being of the elephant in question, this court deems it appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to take over the custody of the elephant in question i.e., Raman; and house it an appropriate rescue/rehabilitation centre,” a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S C Sharma said in an interim order on Tuesday.

The bench clarified that this “arrangement is only temporary and will be subject to the final orders” it passes on the issue of who will have interim custody of the tusker while the appeals are being decided.

The order came on a contempt plea by Jayakrishnan Menon. He claimed that the elephant belonged to the Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and one Krishnankutty, who was given temporary custody, had flouted the assurance given to the court on August 6, 2025, that it “would not be used for any commercial or temple activities in the meanwhile”.

On December 8, 2023, a trial court had granted Raman’s interim custody to Menon on execution of a bond for Rs 25 lakh. The Kerala High Court set it aside and remanded the matter to be heard afresh by the trial court. Menon challenged this before the Supreme Court.

According to Menon, Krishnankutty was only temporarily entrusted with Raman’s custody for purposes of upkeep and care, but the latter “unlawfully…retained custody…and asserted ownership on the strength of forged and fabricated gift deeds…”.

Krishnankutty, on the other hand, claimed that Raman was “lawfully transferred to him by virtue of the…gift deeds” and that he has been continuously maintaining and caring for the elephant for the last 10-12 years.

On January 22, 2024, the Supreme Court had ordered status quo regarding Raman’s custody. A year later, on August 6, 2025, the Supreme Court also asked the principal chief conservator of forests or the seniormost officer in the department who is in charge of wildlife conservation in Kerala, to inspect Raman and submit a report on its health and well-being within two weeks.

The chief wildlife warden, Kerala, subsequently submitted a report that a close examination was not possible since the elephant was under musth and was very aggressive. The court then asked the chief wildlife warden to undertake the examination after the completion of its musth period and submit a report.

Thereafter, Menon moved the Supreme Court, alleging violation of the assurance given to the court. He alleged that Krishnankutty had continued to use the elephant in temple festivals, public processions, and commercial activities. He also placed on record photographs, posters, social media post(s), and other materials.

Krishnankutty, however, denied this and said the photographs, social media posts, and posters are either old material pre-dating the August 6 order. He, however, admitted that “on one occasion, the elephant i.e., Raman was taken to the temple for an event allegedly only for religious purposes owing to the absence of the originally scheduled elephant. In this regard, an unconditional apology is sought to be tendered before this court”.

Taking note, the Supreme Court said, “Thus, 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…before this court. It is truly unfortunate that the elephant in question…, who also happens to be the tallest elephant in the state of Kerala has been subjected to commercial exploitation despite an order restraining such exploitation, that too on the strength of an undertaking made before this court. We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless, if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance. We cannot be a mute spectator, more so in matters pertaining to voiceless animals, whose wellbeing is also of paramount importance.”

Directing the state to take custody, the Supreme Court said, “…Kerala may also proceed to temporarily care for the elephant at its’ own expense, in which case, it may pass appropriate administrative orders in accordance with the statutory safeguards enshrined under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.”

The court also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on Krishnankutty, holding him guilty of contempt of court for wilfully disobeying the undertaking given to it.