Court upholds existing statutory clearances for elephant transfers, emphasizes welfare of captive elephants, and keeps the constitutional challenge under active consideration
The Gauhati High Court, in a recent interlocutory application hearing dated September 17, 2026, addressed concerns over the transfer of five captive elephants owned by private individuals to temples in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, Rohit Choudhury, challenged the proviso to Sections 40(2A) and 40(2B) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, asserting that these provisions create an arbitrary and unconstitutional regime regarding the ownership, control, custody, and possession of captive elephants, thereby violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees equality before the law.
The petitioner's apprehensions stemmed from a prior incident involving an elephant named "Joymala" that was transferred to Tamil Nadu and reportedly overstayed, raising concerns about potential ill-treatment and unauthorized use of such majestic creatures. However, the Court noted that the State of Assam had already acted by filing a writ petition seeking the safe return of "Joymala," indicating that due legal recourse is being pursued in cases of misuse or overstay.
During the hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General of Assam assured the Court that all statutory clearances required for the transfer of the five elephants had been duly granted, and that the authorities would ensure the safe transportation and well-being of the elephants, which are being moved for religious purposes.
The Court, presided over by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, declined to impose any restraining order on the transfer, citing the lack of substantial evidence indicating violations of statutory clearances or the welfare of the elephants. However, the Court underscored the importance of safeguarding the health and welfare of captive elephants, cautioning against any unscrupulous or unauthorized use.
The interlocutory application remains pending, with the Court directing the Additional Advocate General to file a detailed response in the next hearing. The related writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Sections 40(2A) and 40(2B) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act is scheduled for further consideration on October 15, 2026.
This judgment highlights the judicial balancing act between upholding statutory regimes related to wildlife protection and addressing constitutional challenges, while ensuring the welfare of captive elephants during inter-state transfers for religious activities.
Bottom Line:
Challenge to validity of proviso to Section 40(2A) and 40(2B) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, concerning ownership, control, custody, and possession of captive elephants.
Statutory provision(s):
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Section 40(2A), Section 40(2B), Constitution of India Article 14
Rohit Choudhury v. Union of India, (Gauhati)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981423
