The Supreme Court has held Krishnankutty guilty of contempt of court in the Elephant Raman contempt case. He violated an undertaking given before the Court that the captive elephant, Raman, would not be used for temple rituals or commercial activities while proceedings concerning the elephant’s interim custody remained pending. The Court also directed the State of Kerala to take temporary custody of Raman and house the elephant at an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre until further orders in the pending criminal appeals.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order on June 9, 2026, in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 59–60 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4836–4837 of 2024, Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty & Others. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma authored the judgment.
Background: Dispute Over Raman’s Custody
Jayakrishna Menon filed the contempt petitions alleging that Krishnankutty had wilfully disobeyed the Supreme Court’s orders dated August 6 and August 21, 2025.
The dispute centres on the ownership and custody of Raman, a captive elephant. Menon claimed that Raman belonged to the Mata Amritanandamayi Mutt and had only been entrusted to Krishnankutty for care and upkeep.
According to Menon, Krishnankutty unlawfully retained the elephant and relied on forged gift deeds dated February 18 and February 28, 2017, to assert ownership. He also argued that any transfer without approval under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, would be invalid.
Krishnankutty denied the allegations. He maintained that the gift deeds lawfully transferred Raman to him and stated that he had continuously cared for the elephant for the past 10 to 12 years.
Criminal Proceedings and Interim Custody Dispute
Kerala Police registered Crime No. 1000 of 2023 against Krishnankutty under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case involved allegations of illegal retention and maltreatment of Raman.
Menon later filed an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking interim custody of the elephant through Crl. M.P. No. 2146 of 2023.
The custody dispute moved through the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court before reaching the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 4836–4837 of 2024. During the pendency of the appeals, the Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding Raman’s custody. It first issued the direction on January 22, 2024, and extended it from time to time.
Supreme Court’s Earlier Directions
On August 6, 2025, the Supreme Court directed Kerala’s Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, or the seniormost wildlife officer, to inspect Raman and submit a report on the elephant’s health and well-being within two weeks.
The Court also recorded an undertaking given through Krishnankutty’s counsel that Raman would not participate in temple or commercial activities during the proceedings.
Later, on August 21, 2025, the Court considered a report from the Chief Wildlife Warden stating that officials could not closely examine Raman because the elephant was in musth and behaving aggressively.
The Court then ordered a fresh examination after the musth period ended. It also sought comments regarding allegations relating to Raman’s welfare and well-being.
Allegations of Breach of Undertaking
Menon alleged that Krishnankutty violated the undertaking and continued to use Raman in temple festivals, public processions, and commercial activities.
To support his allegations, Menon relied on photographs, posters, promotional materials, and social media posts. He argued that these materials demonstrated the continued commercial exploitation of the elephant.
He further alleged that State authorities failed to conduct the close-quarter examination ordered by the Supreme Court after the musth period ended.
Krishnankutty denied the allegations. He argued that Raman had not participated in temple or commercial activities after the Court’s order. He claimed that the photographs and social media posts either predated the order or resulted from publicity generated independently by temple committees.
However, he admitted that Raman had attended one temple event. He explained that another elephant scheduled for the ritual had fallen ill. He offered an unconditional apology and insisted that there had been no deliberate or wilful disobedience.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court examined a report dated February 3, 2026, submitted by State authorities. The report recorded that officials conducted a detailed inspection at Chavakkad, where Raman had been brought for a temple festival ceremony.
The Bench also noted that Krishnankutty’s written submissions acknowledged Raman’s participation in a temple ritual.
According to those submissions, another elephant named “Mahadevan” had fallen ill. As a result, Raman temporarily replaced it to satisfy religious sentiments connected with the ceremony.
The Bench held that Krishnankutty had acted in direct violation of the undertaking given before the Court.
The Court observed:
“It is truly unfortunate that the elephant in question i.e., Raman, who also happens to be the tallest elephant in the State of Kerala, has been subjected to commercial exploitation despite an order restraining such exploitation, that too on the strength of an undertaking made before this Court. We would be failing in our duty towards the voiceless, if we turn a blind eye towards such defiance. We cannot be a mute spectator, more so in matters pertaining to voiceless animals, whose wellbeing is also of paramount importance.”
Final Directions
In the Elephant Raman contempt case, the Supreme Court stressed that courts cannot ignore the welfare of voiceless animals and that undertakings given before the Court must be honoured.
The Supreme Court directed the State of Kerala to temporarily take custody of Raman and house the elephant at an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation centre until it passes final orders in the pending criminal appeals.
The Court clarified that the arrangement remains temporary and subject to future orders.
It also allowed Kerala to care for Raman at its own expense and issue appropriate administrative orders in accordance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
The Bench held that Krishnankutty had wilfully violated his undertaking by allowing Raman to participate in temple and commercial activities during the subsistence of the Court’s orders. It therefore found him guilty of contempt of court.
However, considering the interests of justice, the Court imposed a fine of ₹2,000 and directed him to deposit the amount with the Registry within four weeks.
The Court discharged Respondent Nos. 2 to 9, who were State authorities, from the contempt proceedings. It found that they had made genuine efforts to conduct the inspection in November 2025 and held that the eventual delay occurred because Raman remained in musth.
The Court accordingly disposed of the contempt petitions and all pending applications.
Read more:
