
Court rejects Jain trust's plea, upholds elephant Mahadevi's transfer to Vantara
Senior counsel Surel Shah, appearing for the Math, contended that the transfer orders—issued on December 27, 2024, and reaffirmed on June 3, 2025—were arbitrary. He maintained that the elephant had recovered from earlier injuries and that the institution had taken measures to improve her care. The petitioner also alleged that the complaint filed by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), which initiated the proceedings, was driven by ulterior motives to add Mahadevi to Vantara's collection.However, advocate Vishal Kanade, representing PETA, presented photographic and veterinary evidence that highlighted Mahadevi's deteriorating health, including foot rot, abscesses, and signs of psychological distress due to solitary confinement and poor conditions. PETA alleged that the elephant had been subjected to commercial exploitation and denied basic welfare.The court, after reviewing the HPC's comprehensive evaluation, observed that Mahadevi's living conditions at the Math were 'absolutely dismal,' with inadequate hygiene, nutrition, veterinary care, and social environment. 'The evaluation clearly establishes that the elephant suffered injuries while under the 'care' and custody of the Math,' the bench remarked, noting that the Math failed to provide any explanation for her injuries.Calling the treatment of the elephant 'callous and brutal,' the court strongly criticized the use of Mahadevi to carry people and equipment during religious processions. While acknowledging that the Math had made some improvements following complaints, the bench dismissed these as 'cosmetic' and 'too little, too late.'The court emphasised that animal welfare must take precedence over religious customs, endorsing the HPC's finding that Vantara was best suited for the elephant's rehabilitation. The bench also noted that Maharashtra currently lacks a dedicated elephant sanctuary and that Vantara—located in Jamnagar—is both experienced and geographically closest, minimizing transportation stress.The bench concluded by affirming the HPC's decision and directed that Mahadevi be relocated to Vantara for continued care and protection.- EndsTrending Reel

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
SC adds NHRC to PIL for law on mental health care
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the National Human Right Commission to be made a party to the PIL for the implementation of a 2017 law on safeguarding the rights and needs of persons with mental illnesses. A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar asked petitioner Gaurav Kumar Bansal to file an application to make rights body NHRC a party to the PIL filed in 2018. The bench said the PIL may be transferred to the NHRC for implementing the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Bansal said a committee headed by a former apex court judge could be set up to oversee the implementation. "We cannot create a parallel mechanism just because the existing system has any flaws," the bench said. The bench, in the meantime, asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, to share its affidavit with Bansal and posted the hearing after three weeks. The bench had previously said Parliament enacted the Mental Healthcare Act in 2017 which contemplates establishment of "Central Mental Health Authority (CMHA), State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) and Mental Health Review Board (MHRB)". The top court on March 2 directed Centre to file an affidavit indicating the establishment and functioning of the Central Mental Health Authority, State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Board. The affidavit was further ordered to show the statutory and mandatory appointments to the authority and the review board. On January 3, 2019, the apex court issued notices to the Centre, all states and Union Territories on the petition which has claimed that non-implementation of provisions of the Act by the states and UTs was a gross violation of life and liberty of the citizens. Taking note of an incident, the bench said chaining people with mental illness was violative of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which deals with life and personal liberty, and their dignity cannot be compromised. The PIL argued persons with mental illnesses were chained in a faith-based mental asylum in Budaun district of Uttar Pradesh in violation of provisions of the Mental Health Care Act 2017. The court examined the photos of such patients calling it a matter of great concern. The PIL said chaining a person suffering from mental illness was a blatant violation of a provision of the 2017 Act which says that every such person shall not only have a right to live with dignity but he or she shall be protected from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Referring to the National Mental Health Survey 2016, he has claimed that around 14 per cent of India's population requires active mental health interventions and around 2 per cent Indians were suffering from severe mental disorders.>


News18
2 days ago
- News18
SC adds NHRC to PIL for law on mental health care
Agency: PTI Last Updated: New Delhi, Jul 16 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday directed the National Human Right Commission to be made a party to the PIL for the implementation of a 2017 law on safeguarding the rights and needs of persons with mental illnesses. A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar asked petitioner Gaurav Kumar Bansal to file an application to make rights body NHRC a party to the PIL filed in 2018. The bench said the PIL may be transferred to the NHRC for implementing the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Bansal said a committee headed by a former apex court judge could be set up to oversee the implementation. 'We cannot create a parallel mechanism just because the existing system has any flaws," the bench said. The bench, in the meantime, asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, to share its affidavit with Bansal and posted the hearing after three weeks. The bench had previously said Parliament enacted the Mental Healthcare Act in 2017 which contemplates establishment of 'Central Mental Health Authority (CMHA), State Mental Health Authority (SMHA) and Mental Health Review Board (MHRB)". The top court on March 2 directed Centre to file an affidavit indicating the establishment and functioning of the Central Mental Health Authority, State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Board. The affidavit was further ordered to show the statutory and mandatory appointments to the authority and the review board. On January 3, 2019, the apex court issued notices to the Centre, all states and Union Territories on the petition which has claimed that non-implementation of provisions of the Act by the states and UTs was a gross violation of life and liberty of the citizens. Taking note of an incident, the bench said chaining people with mental illness was violative of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which deals with life and personal liberty, and their dignity cannot be compromised. The PIL argued persons with mental illnesses were chained in a faith-based mental asylum in Budaun district of Uttar Pradesh in violation of provisions of the Mental Health Care Act 2017. The court examined the photos of such patients calling it a matter of great concern. The PIL said chaining a person suffering from mental illness was a blatant violation of a provision of the 2017 Act which says that every such person shall not only have a right to live with dignity but he or she shall be protected from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Referring to the National Mental Health Survey 2016, he has claimed that around 14 per cent of India's population requires active mental health interventions and around 2 per cent Indians were suffering from severe mental disorders. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: July 18, 2025, 13:30 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.


New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
‘Reply on medical consent rights of same-sex partners'
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Thursday sought responses from three Union ministries and the National Medical Commission on a plea demanding legal recognition for non-heterosexual partners as legitimate medical representatives in emergencies and treatment scenarios. Justice Sachin Datta issued notice to the Ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Law and Justice, and Social Justice and Empowerment, asking them to clarify their stand on a matter that strikes at the heart of healthcare equality and constitutional rights. The petition has been filed by Arshiya Takkar, who has urged the court to frame concrete guidelines recognising non-heterosexual partners as valid representatives capable of giving consent in medical decision-making. In the alternative, she has asked the court to declare that a medical power of attorney executed in advance should suffice for such partners to act as the patient's representative during emergencies. At the core of the legal challenge is Clause 7.16 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which mandates that consent for medical procedures be obtained from 'husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself'. The plea also invokes Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the denial of such a right infringes upon an individual's right to dignity and personal autonomy in relationships, particularly during moments of vulnerability like medical emergencies.