Newdelhi: The Supreme Court has pulled up the Kerala government for not complying with its directive to take over the custody of Raman, recognized as the tallest elephant in the state, while also calling for the animal's most recent medical evaluation. The judicial scrutiny highlighted ongoing concerns regarding regulatory compliance, animal welfare monitoring, and unauthorized commercial exploitation.
During the proceedings, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu was informed that the elephant remained with its current caretaker because it was experiencing musth, a biological state characterized by a sharp surge in testosterone that allegedly prevented relocation. The bench questioned whether state authorities had been actively monitoring the animal's health condition.
When representatives for the caretaker argued that the elephant had been maintained with affection and proper attention, Justice Datta responded critically, pointing out that love and care should not be conflated with commercial gain achieved by flouting judicial restraint orders. The court pressed the state counsel on whether health checks had been neglected since late June.
The bench instructed the Kerala administration to submit an updated medical report and ensure honest compliance with previous upkeep directions issued on June 9, 2026. In that prior ruling, the top court had ordered the state to take charge of Raman and house him in an appropriate rehabilitation center, emphasizing that the welfare of voiceless animals remains a primary concern and noting that the elephant had been improperly utilized in ceremonial events and rituals.
The underlying legal matter stems from a contempt petition filed by Jayakrishna Menon, who contended that the elephant belonged to the Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and was only entrusted to a caretaker named Krishnankutty for maintenance. The Supreme Court previously found Krishnankutty guilty of contempt for violating undertakings given to the bench and imposed a fine, while directing the state government to oversee temporary care under wildlife legislation.
Friday's session focused heavily on whether state authorities had fulfilled their responsibilities regarding the custody transfer and the current status of the animal's health. The court's interim directions demand strict adherence to judicial orders as the legal proceedings continue.