Arikkomban: An elephantine problem for India's hard-pressed judiciary

“We are fed up with this Arikkomban (rice-eating tusker). You go to the Kerala High Court. They are aware of the ground realities. Every week we are getting a petition that place this elephant somewhere else. That is not the remit of the Supreme Court.” This was Chief Justice DY Chandrachud while dismissing a petition by the animal rights body, Walking Eye Foundation for Animal Advocacy, seeking a detailed report on the tusker’s present health condition.

Justice Chandrachud went on to say that the petition was a misuse of the process of the court. “It is dismissed with a cost of Rs 25,000 payable to the welfare fund of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Since you have dealt with our attitude under Article 32, you pay the cost. I don’t allow lawyers to take my court for a ride. Do not misunderstand the gentle demeanour. There can be a tough exterior behind it. You now suffer,” he said. But the CJI later stopped short of imposing the cost on the animal rights body in the order.

Also Read: Arikomban, wildlife activism and beyond: It’s complicity, not conflict

The organisation had sought a detailed report regarding Arikkomban’s health. “Pass appropriate directions to make immediate arrangements for the spot treatment of the elephant, Arikkomban, and submit a detailed report regarding his present health,” said the plea, which the court rejected.

Another plea by environment activist CR Neelakantan and VK Anandan seeking to bring back the elephant to his natural habitat by relocating the human settlement in Chinnakanal and surrounding areas also met the same fate as the Supreme Court refused to entertain it.

Arikkomban affair

It was on March 23 that the matter of Arikkomban first came for judicial scrutiny as the People for Animals (PFA), Trivandrum chapter, and Walking Eye Foundation for Animal Advocacy, Thrissur, approached the Kerala High Court against the Forest Department drive to tranquilize and capture the tusker and keep it in captivity at the Kodanad elephant camp.

In an unusual evening sitting, a division Bench of the Kerala High Court stayed the operation and constituted an expert committee to study the situation and suggest alternatives. It was the expert committee’s intervention that resulted in the translocation of the elephant first to the Periyar Tiger Reserve on April 29 and later to the Kalakadu-Mundanthurai tiger reserve in Tamil Nadu on June 5.

Also read: Arikkomban’s translocation: TN farmers now fret over rice-loving tusker

During the three months after the first stay was allowed, there were seven interim orders by the division bench of the Kerala High Court regarding the health and well-being of the tusker. In the latest order on June 27, the Bench of Justices P Gopinath and AK Jayasankaran Nambiar suggested that a committee of experts will look into the matters and file a report regarding the possibilities of releasing the elephants captured from the wild and now kept in captivity.

The court was referring to the two elephants, PM 2 and PT 7, that were captured from Wayanad and Palakkad earlier in this year. The animal rights activists have been demanding their release to the wild in their interim applications filed before a division bench, which is treating the cases related to atrocities against the animals as a suo motu PIL.

A dog’s death

On June 28, 2021, a black Labrador, Bruno, was beaten to death by three people in Thiruvananthapuram. The Kerala High Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and renamed the case in memory of the dog as In Re: Bruno. The incident came to the attention of the court after Christuraj, one of the owners of the dog, posted a gruesome video of three underage youths beating the dog tied to a fishing boat to death. The Bench issued a slew of guidelines for the state to alleviate the misery of the animals.

Interestingly, henceforth, all the suits related to atrocities against animals have been treated under the same case file as interlocutory applications. There have been 97 such applications till date, several of them regarding human-elephant conflict, including the cases involving Arikkomban.

Also read: Kerala govt asks wildlife officials to find suitable site for Arikkomban shift

“This is a classic case of judicial activism and a well-settled power. The Supreme Court has transferred so many cases to respective High Courts to exercise Article 226. The boundaries of accountability of this power needs to be discussed separately,” says Hareesh Vasudevan, a Kerala High Court lawyer.

Petitions were filed in the Madras High Court also regarding Arikkomban’s translocation. The Madurai Bench of the court initially stayed the translocation for a day but the order could not be executed as the elephant had already been released. The petition filed by Kochi resident Rebecca Joseph seeking a direction to the authorities to translocate Arikkomban to a place that is known to the elephant rather than translocate to a territory unknown to it was dismissed by the court. Another PIL petition filed by M Gopal of Cumbum in Theni district was also dismissed.

More interventions

On May 31, the Kerala High Court again entertained a plea to bring back Arikkomban to Kerala, this time by businessman and president of the party, Twenty 20, only to dismiss it, stating that the court failed to understand the rationale for the petitioner to venture into these litigation proceedings.

This was the context for the Chief Justice of India to state that the court is fed up with this elephant.

Also read: TN: Wild tusker Arikomban tranquillised, being translocated to suitable habitat

“We were sure that this would happen and had advised them not to approach the Supreme court,” said Sreedevi S Kartha, a trustee of People for Animals. “We do not have any evidence to refute the claim by the Tamil Nadu Forest Department which they have submitted in the Madras High Court that Arikkomban is well and fine. These complainants should have known this,” added Sreedevi, who was part of the first set of litigants to approach the court for the jumbo.

With the court-appointed expert committee yet to submit a detailed report on what to do with the two other elephants in captivity, the litigation on human-elephant conflict is far from over. Arikkomban will undoubtedly have the most court proceedings involving it as a person of interest among all other animals.