Archive · 9 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Presses Kerala Over Elephant Raman’s Relocation Delay
The Supreme Court had told Kerala to take care of Raman, a captive elephant, and move him to a suitable place.
The court says the state has not yet shown that it followed that order.
Raman’s caretaker said the elephant could not be moved because he was in musth, a condition mentioned in the hearing.
The person who brought the case argued that this condition was being caused on purpose when officials tried to move Raman.
The court wants Kerala to provide a new medical report about the elephant.
Raman’s ownership is also being argued in court.
The caretaker says he owns Raman, while another person says Raman belongs to a religious institution.
The court has previously ruled that Raman was used in temple activities despite an earlier promise not to do so.
The Supreme Court questioned Kerala over its failure to move Raman to a suitable rescue or rehabilitation facility as ordered in June.
Raman’s caretaker said the elephant remained with him because it was in musth; the petitioner’s counsel alleged the condition was artificially induced when relocation was ordered.
The court directed Kerala to file an affidavit with a recent medical report and comply with its June 9, 2026, order on Raman’s upkeep.
The custody dispute involves Jayakrishna Menon’s claim that Raman belongs to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and Krishnankutty’s claim of ownership under 2017 gift deeds.
The court previously found Krishnankutty in contempt for allowing Raman to take part in temple activities despite an undertaking, and imposed a ₹2,000 fine.
- Who
- The Supreme Court of India, the Kerala government, and Raman’s caretaker, Krishnankutty.
- What
- The court questioned Kerala’s delay in moving Raman and ordered the state to provide a fresh medical report and comply with its earlier order.
- When
- Friday, October 9, 2026; the court’s earlier order was dated June 9, 2026.
- Where
- Supreme Court of India, New Delhi; Raman is in Kerala.
- Why
- The court is addressing Raman’s welfare and the state’s compliance with its order to take custody and move him to a suitable facility.
Caretaker and state’s explanation
Petitioner’s allegations and court’s concerns
Why Raman has not been moved
Caretaker and state’s explanation
Krishnankutty said Raman remained with him because the elephant was in musth, and the state’s counsel supported that explanation.
Petitioner’s allegations and court’s concerns
The petitioner’s counsel alleged that musth was artificially induced whenever relocation was ordered. The court questioned the delay and the lack of a recent medical report.
Raman’s ownership
Caretaker and state’s explanation
Krishnankutty claims ownership based on gift deeds executed in 2017.
Petitioner’s allegations and court’s concerns
Jayakrishna Menon claims Raman belongs to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and was temporarily entrusted to Krishnankutty for upkeep.
Temple participation
Caretaker and state’s explanation
Krishnankutty said Raman’s participation in a temple ritual was intended to fulfil religious sentiments, not to exploit the elephant commercially, and offered an unconditional apology if it breached the court’s directions.
Petitioner’s allegations and court’s concerns
The court held that Raman’s temple-related use violated the undertaking not to use him for temple activities and directed Kerala to take custody for his welfare.
- Elephant
- Raman, described in the article as Kerala’s tallest elephant.
- Court hearing
- October 9, 2026.
- Earlier custody order
- The Supreme Court’s order of June 9, 2026, directed Kerala to take custody of Raman and arrange suitable care.
- Medical report presented
- The state had submitted a report dated June 24; the court requested a more recent one.
- Ownership claims
- Jayakrishna Menon says Raman belongs to Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt; Krishnankutty claims ownership under gift deeds executed in 2017.
- Earlier contempt finding
- Krishnankutty was found guilty of contempt over Raman’s use in temple-related activities despite an undertaking.
- Fine
- The court imposed a fine of ₹2,000 on Krishnankutty.