Bring elephants back to Bengal: HC to forest dept
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The court further directed the state to take effective measures at the border to ensure that no elephants are illegally transported in the future.
The HC division bench issued the directives on Monday in a PIL filed by animal rights organisation Cape Foundation against the transportation of the elephants — Bhola, Suman, and Basanti — to different states. While a coordinate bench on July 19, 2019 asked Bengal's chief wildlife warden to also speak to his counterparts in Bihar and other states to ensure the repatriation of the elephants, non-compliance with the order led to the issue of a contempt order on Sept 7, 2022.
After the mahant of an ashram in Bihar's Gopalganj, who claimed to be the lawful owner of the elephants by virtue of a gift deed dated Oct 12, 2017, approached the Supreme Court and complained that he was not heard, the apex court set aside the earlier orders and directed the HC to hear him.
The Cape Foundation counsel argued that the elephants were illegally transported from Bengal to the ashram despite the cancellation of the ownership certificate and suspension of the registration certificate of Natraj Circus.
"After the cancellation of the ownership certificate in 2018, the elephants automatically vested with the state. Also, no prior permission was obtained from the chief wildlife warden for the transportation of any elephant from Bengal.
The respondent (mahant) also failed to establish any lawful right," the counsel said.
Inspections showed the elephants were kept in poor conditions, chained with spiked shackles for most of the day. Reports also stated that they were being commercially exploited and used in political rallies.
The division bench of Justice Arindam Mukherjee and Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur stated the state could realise the cost of transportation from the ashram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
31 minutes ago
- The Hindu
HC seeks report over food poisoning incident in Uyyalawada BC residential school
Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the State government to submit a report on the food poisoning at State-run BC residential school for girls at Uyyalawada in Nagarkurnool district on July 26. A bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin granted two weeks of time to the government counsel to secure instructions over nearly 100 girls of the school falling sick due to food poisoning. The bench passed the order in a PIL seeking directions to the government to provide hygienic and nutritious food to students as per the guidelines in fourth chapter of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The plea was filed in 2023 by K.A.S. Guru Teja raising several issues relating to facilities to be provided to students in government schools and hostels. In 2024, the HC passed interim directions seeking response of the government in the matter. In another PIL, the bench instructed the government to submit before it the steps taken to protect Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project in the backdrop of heavy rains lashing the State. This interim direction was passed by the bench in a batch of two PIL petitions over remedial measures to be taken during heavy rains and floods in 2020. The bench wanted the government to file a status report in the matter and posted it to August 28 for the next hearing.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Muslim marriages can be dissolved through verbal consent: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a Muslim marriage can be dissolved through 'Mubaraat', a form of divorce wherein couples can end their marriage through verbal mutual consent without a written agreement in place. For the purpose of 'Mubaraat', the expression of a mutual consent for dissolution of 'Nikah' is sufficient to dissolve the marriage in itself, the HC bench stated. (Representative Image) A bench of Justices AY Kogje and NS Sanjay Gowda made the observation while recently setting aside a Rajkot family court order which rejected a suit filed by a Muslim couple seeking dissolution of marriage by 'Mubaraat, a form of divorce by mutual consent. The bench sent the matter back to the family court and asked it to conclude the proceedings preferably within a period of three months. Disagreeing with the family court's stand that a written agreement is necessary to dissolve the wedlock, the HC, citing the Quran, Hadith and Muslim Personal Law, noted that such an agreement is not necessary if a Muslim couple seeks dissolution of marriage through mutual consent. Following a marital discord, a young Muslim couple from Rajkot had approached the family court for declaration of their marriage to have been dissolved by 'Mubaraat', which according to the couple, is recognized as a form of divorce by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. However, the family court rejected the suit holding the petition for declaration of dissolution of marriage by way of 'Mubaraat' is not maintainable in the present form, the HC order stated. The couple challenged the order in the HC, saying the lower court had committed "an error in holding that Mubaraat Agreement is sine qua non (an essential condition) for entertaining such suit, whereas even as per Shariat, requirement of written agreement is not necessary at all". "It is argued that the family court has erroneously considered that agreement to part has only to be in Written Form, whereas Shariat does recognize agreement which is not even in written form," the HC observed. Citing religious texts and Personal Law, the HC noted "There is nothing to suggest that there has to be a written agreement of 'Mubaraat' nor there is a practice prevailing regarding maintaining of the register to record such agreement for mutually dissolved 'Nikah' (marriage)." For the purpose of 'Mubaraat', the expression of a mutual consent for dissolution of 'Nikah' is sufficient to dissolve the marriage in itself, the bench stated. The bench allowed the couple's petition and set aside the lower court's order and sent the matter back to it "to consider the family suit treating it to be maintainable and to proceed on merits". "With due regard to the age and future prospects of both the parties, the (high) court deems fit to direct the family court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this court," the bench said.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Muslim marriages can be dissolved through verbal consent, rules Gujarat HC
Last Updated: Ahmedabad, Aug 12 (PTI) The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a Muslim marriage can be dissolved through 'Mubaraat', a form of divorce wherein couples can end their marriage through verbal mutual consent without a written agreement in place. A bench of Justices AY Kogje and NS Sanjay Gowda made the observation while recently setting aside a Rajkot family court order which rejected a suit filed by a Muslim couple seeking dissolution of marriage by 'Mubaraat, a form of divorce by mutual consent. The bench sent the matter back to the family court and asked it to conclude the proceedings preferably within a period of three months. Disagreeing with the family court's stand that a written agreement is necessary to dissolve the wedlock, the HC, citing the Quran, Hadith and Muslim Personal Law, noted that such an agreement is not necessary if a Muslim couple seeks dissolution of marriage through mutual consent. Following a marital discord, a young Muslim couple from Rajkot had approached the family court for declaration of their marriage to have been dissolved by 'Mubaraat', which according to the couple, is recognized as a form of divorce by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. However, the family court rejected the suit holding the petition for declaration of dissolution of marriage by way of 'Mubaraat' is not maintainable in the present form, the HC order stated. The couple challenged the order in the HC, saying the lower court had committed 'an error in holding that Mubaraat Agreement is sine qua non (an essential condition) for entertaining such suit, whereas even as per Shariat, requirement of written agreement is not necessary at all". 'It is argued that the family court has erroneously considered that agreement to part has only to be in Written Form, whereas Shariat does recognize agreement which is not even in written form," the HC observed. Citing religious texts and Personal Law, the HC noted 'There is nothing to suggest that there has to be a written agreement of 'Mubaraat' nor there is a practice prevailing regarding maintaining of the register to record such agreement for mutually dissolved 'Nikah' (marriage)." For the purpose of 'Mubaraat', the expression of a mutual consent for dissolution of 'Nikah' is sufficient to dissolve the marriage in itself, the bench stated. The bench allowed the couple's petition and set aside the lower court's order and sent the matter back to it 'to consider the family suit treating it to be maintainable and to proceed on merits". 'With due regard to the age and future prospects of both the parties, the (high) court deems fit to direct the family court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order of this court," the bench said. PTI PJT PD RSY view comments First Published: August 12, 2025, 21:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
