Kochi, The Kerala High Court has sought a response from the Center and the state on a PIL challenging a government order to the extent that it permits declaration of possession of elephants or elephant-derived materials.
A public interest litigation filed by an NGO expressed apprehension that allowing declaration of elephant possession would indirectly pave the way for obtaining certificate of title, which is contrary to the Supreme Court order.
A bench of Justices Ziadur Rahman A.A. And K.F. Jayakumar has sent a notice to the Environment Ministry, Kerala government and Animal Welfare Board of India seeking their stand on the public interest litigation filed by an NGO, Walking Eye Foundation for Animal Advocacy.
The Thrissur-based NGO, in its plea, claimed that the March 2026 government order provides a new period of 45 days to declare possession of animals, animal paraphernalia or trophies, including those derived from Schedule I species, which includes captive elephants.
This was said to violate the 2016 Supreme Court directions restricting the issuance of new ownership certificates for elephants.
The petition had alleged that the state government should have excluded elephants from the purview of the GO.
It was also said that according to the official data regarding captive elephants in Kerala, as reported by the Forest Department, the total number of captive elephants is 388, of which 39 are under the care and management of the Forest Department, and the remaining 349 are in the possession and custody of private individuals and institutions.
“It is also stated that out of the said 349 elephants that are privately owned, a large number of elephants do not have valid ownership certificates as stipulated under the provisions of the Wildlife Act, 1972.
“Providing a new opportunity to make statements in relation to Schedule I animals would directly facilitate and enable persons who own the said elephants without valid certificates of ownership to regularize their possession and ultimately obtain recognition of ownership in an indirect manner,” the NGO said in its appeal.
It also argued that the GO Act, in its effect and operation, “amounts to a colorful exercise of legislative power,” as it indirectly enables persons who have illegal possession or custody of captive elephants, including their calves, to regulate such possession and ultimately claim ownership or recognition under the legal framework.
The PIL sought to deem the government order, insofar as it applies to elephants, to be illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and to set it aside.
The court referred the case to another hearing on June 1.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
