Fadnavis heeds public demand; govt to take up cases of elephant Madhuri, Kabutarkhanas
In the case of Madhuri, the female elephant shifted to Vantara in Gujarat from a mutt in Kolhapur district, Fadnavis said that the state government will file a review petition in the Supreme Court to bring her back to Maharashtra.
Even in the case of Bombay High Court's decision on pigeon feeding and order to close Kabootarkhanas, the CM said that if necessary, the state government will present its side at the Supreme Court.
Following widespread protests across Kolhapur against the rehabilitation of Madhuri — also known as Mahadevi — to the Vantara facility from the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sansthan Mutt, Fadnavis convened a meeting with ministers and stakeholders. Vantara is a state-of-the-art animal rescue centre run by Reliance Industries and Reliance Foundation.
The controversy arose in July when the Bombay High Court ordered the rehabilitation of the ailing elephant, which was housed in the Jain Mutt in Nandini village in Shirol taluka, based on a petition by animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The Supreme Court had also upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court subsequently.
'Considering the traditions of Nandani Math and the sentiments of local people, efforts will be made to bring Madhuri back to Math through legal process. Madhuri has been in Nandani Math for the past 34 years, and there is a public sentiment that she should be brought back. Keeping this in mind, the state government will file a review petition. The mutt should also include the state government in its petition. Also, a separate detailed affidavit will be filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the forest department,' said Fadnavis in a statement.
Once the elephant is brought back, the state government will set up a team, including a veterinarian, to take care of the elephant and provide necessary assistance, he said.
Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar said that the forest department should collect information about all the elephants that were taken out of Maharashtra.
Congress MLC Satej Patil said that his party stands with the local people on the issue and believes that the female elephant, who is an integral part of the mutt, should be returned.
Former Lok Sabha MP Raju Shetti said that a conspiracy was hatched to snatch the female elephant from the mutt. 'A number of mutts in Maharashtra and Karnataka are getting notices to take away the elephants. This has to be stopped and probed,' said Shetti.
On July 30, when the team from Vantara came to transport Mahadevi from Shirol, there was an outpour of grief by local residents, who refused to allow the vehicle to move.
In a different case, action against Kabutarkhanas (pigeon shelters) following a Bombay High Court order is likely to get diluted with the CM talking against their immediate closure and directing the civic body to continue controlled feeding to pigeons.
On July 31, the Bombay High Court directed the closure of Kabutarkhanas citing health risks involved and based on it, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) covered the pigeon shelter in Dadar. Several Jain organisations objected to it citing their century-old tradition and were supported by minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha. In the wake of the opposition, Fadnavis called a meeting of officials on Tuesday.
At the meeting, Fadnavis directed the authorities to conduct a study on the health issues caused by Kabutarkhanas. 'He also mentioned that immediate closure of Kabutarkhanas is not appropriate. Instead, there can be fixed timings for giving them food so control feeding is possible. He also directed the civic body to look for machines to clean pigeon poop, which poses a health risk,' said a government official.
'The hearing on writ petitions filed regarding Kabutarkhanas is ongoing and the state government as well as the BMC will present the side. If necessary, the state government will present its side at the Supreme Court as well,' said the CM. He also directed the BMC to set up a bird shelter.
Lodha said after the meeting that the BMC would restore the water connection and remove the cover on the Dadar Kabutarkhana.
'As far as health risks are concerned, CM Fadnavis has strictly directed that all precautions such as cleaning and restricted feeding will be taken. People's health is of utmost importance to us,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
38 minutes ago
- The Hindu
13 Allahabad High Court judges urge Chief Justice to not follow Supreme Court's directive
Three days after the Supreme Court issued a scathing order barring an Allahabad High Court judge from hearing criminal cases until his retirement, several judges of the High Court have come out in support of their fellow judge opposing the implementation of the apex court's directive. Thirteen judges of the Allahabad High Court have written to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, requesting the convening of a Full Court meeting and urging that the apex court's order removing Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster not be implemented. The letter was circulated on Thursday (August 7, 2025), even as the Supreme Court relisted the case in which it made the remarks against Justice Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. 'The Full Court resolves that direction made in para 24 to 26 in the subject order dated August 4, 2025 is not to be complied with as the Supreme Court does not have administrative superintendence over the High Courts,' the letter said. The High Court judges also recorded their 'anguish in respect of tone and tenor of said order'. On August 4, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had reprimanded Justice Kumar for 'cutting a sorry figure for himself' and making 'a mockery of justice'. The apex court had taken stern exception to Justice Kumar finding nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. The Bench said the High Court judge had found nothing wrong in allowing a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' registered in the civil dispute. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' the Bench said. The Indian legal system has been witnessing a troubling trend of the increasing misuse of criminal law in matters that are fundamentally civil in nature. This tendency has been seen in civil disputes, such as money recovery, cheque bounce case, contractual disagreements, inheritance, property partitions, commercial transactions and others. In April this year, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government over the growing trend of ordinary civil disputes being converted into criminal cases. His remarks came during the hearing of an appeal filed by two individuals facing a cheque bounce case, who were also slapped with criminal charges, including breach of trust, intimidation, and criminal conspiracy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
ED need not act like crook while probing crooks: SC
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Thursday said Enforcement Directorate need not behave like a crook while investigating crooks under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and that it must operate within the four walls of the rule of law and established procedure. This oral observation came from a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N K Singh, which was hearing petitions seeking review of SC's 2023 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case where the apex court upheld the broad powers ED enjoyed under PMLA. Additional solicitor general S V Raju requested the court to examine whether the review petitioners have pointed out even a single "error apparent on the face of the judgment" to cross the "maintainability" threshhold. Justice Kant chanced upon a miscellaneous application (MA) filed by a person, facing ED probe, seeking to join the review proceedings. "What is this procedure of filing MAs two years after judgment was pronounced? The practice of waiting for judges, who delivered the judgment, to retire to file such an application is deplorable and amounts to forum shopping," he said. Taking a cue, Raju said these are influential and powerful people with huge money bags and they can resort to any tactics. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas in Dubai | Search Ads Get Info Undo This triggered Justice Bhuyan, who said, "The crooks under investigation can resort to any tactics, but ED cannot behave like a crook. It has to investigate cases in accordance with law and the procedure laid down." Justice Bhuyan also flagged the low conviction rate in PMLA cases filed by ED. "I have observed in one of my judgments that ED has registered more than 5,000 ECIRs in the last five years but the rate of conviction is less than 10%. Even the minister admitted this in Parliament," he said. Raju, however, defended ED. "When an affluent or influential person is proceeded against, he engages a battery of lawyers, who flood the trial court with applications. The trial judge gets mired in disposing of the applications and gets little time to focus on conducting the trial in the main case," he said. Justice Kant said, "We are equally concerned about ED's image. You must improve your method of investigation and improve the rate of conviction. Why can't the govt set up fast-track special courts to conduct day-to-day trial of PMLA cases? Then the battery of lawyers would know that their delaying tactics would not work," he said. The bench then drifted towards the increasing possibility of cryptocurrency for money laundering. "We are not saying ban cryptocurrency. But there should be some regulation. Indian currency is also under certain regulations. Why can't crypto be subjected to regulations," it said.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
13 Allahabad HC judges urge Chief Justice to defy SC order, barring colleague from hearing criminal cases
LUCKNOW: In an unprecedented move, 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court have taken strong exception to the observations made by a division bench of the Supreme Court concerning a sitting judge of the High Court. In a letter dated August 7, 2025, addressed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judges urged the convening of a full court meeting to defy the Supreme Court's August 4 order, which stripped Justice Prashant Kumar of his criminal roster until his retirement. The judges argued that the Supreme Court lacks administrative superintendence over High Courts and, therefore, the directions in paragraphs 24 to 26 of the apex court's order—pertaining to Justice Kumar—should not be complied with. They further called upon the full court to formally record its displeasure regarding the tone and tenor of the Supreme Court's remarks. A full court meeting, typically reserved for matters of significant legal or constitutional importance, involves the presence of all or a substantial number of the court's judges. The Supreme Court's division bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had sharply criticized an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar, in which he directed the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to assign him to a division bench alongside a senior judge. The apex court also mandated that no criminal cases be allotted to Justice Kumar henceforth. The letter, initiated by Justice Arindam Sinha in his individual capacity, expressed shock and dismay over the Supreme Court's observations. It stated that the remarks against Justice Kumar violated the principles established by the Supreme Court itself in Amar Pal Singh v. State of UP (2012), which emphasized judicial restraint when commenting on officers unable to defend themselves. The letter further defended Justice Kumar's order, citing precedents set by the Supreme Court in Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP and Sayed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Administration). Additionally, the judges objected to the Supreme Court's suggestion that Justice Kumar's order might have been influenced by "extraneous considerations" or "sheer ignorance," calling the insinuations unfounded and baseless. The letter, circulated under Chapter III, Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, garnered the signatures of 12 other judges, underscoring the collective discontent within the High Court over the Supreme Court's intervention.
