On 16 July 2025, the Bombay High Court delivered a historic judgment, affirming that the right of an elephant to live with dignity and well-being supersedes traditional or religious claims by humans. As a vegan activist and legal expert, I regard this verdict as not only legally robust, but also morally necessary—a timely recognition that the rights of sentient beings cannot be sacrificed at the altar of customs or convenience.
The case revolved around a 36-year-old elephant, Mahadevi, long held by the Jain Trust named as Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sansthan Math in Nandani village, Maharashtra. For years, Mahadevi endured confinement—chained to a shed with little comfort or social contact. In 2017, following years of stress and poor treatment, Mahadevi fatally attacked the Math’s chief priest. Even after this, a Jain religious trust sought judicial permission to retain Mahadevi for religious ceremonies. The Bombay High Court, upon examining her plight, intervened.
Mahadevi’s condition is not an isolated case. Several elephants across India continue to suffer in the name of tradition and ritual, often hidden from legal scrutiny. Veterinary evidence presented to the Court proved beyond doubt that Mahadevi’s dire health— foot disease, and chronic neglect—was the direct result of ongoing human exploitation.
The Court, acting as *parens patriae* (protector of those unable to protect themselves), went beyond superficial assurances of improved care. The trust's gestures were, as the Court rightly held, insufficient: Mahadevi's injuries were systemic, not incidental. The ruling is remarkable for its willingness to privilege Mahadevi’s lived experience over legal technicalities, highlighting that animal welfare cannot be traded for tradition.
From a constitutional perspective, the Court’s invocation of Article 21 (“protection of life and personal liberty”) is particularly significant. Indian jurisprudence has long expanded the meaning of ‘life’ to include dignity and well-being. Extending this interpretation to animals, as the Court has done, demonstrates the evolving nature of fundamental rights.
The Court also balanced this with Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion. It made it clear that this right does not extend to practices that cause harm or cruelty, citing both the Wildlife Protection Act and Supreme Court precedents like *Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja* (2014). This layered legal reasoning is a clear call for lawyers and law-makers to broaden the constitutional dialogue around animal rights.
Directing Mahadevi’s transfer to the Vantara Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust—a facility equipped for the care and rehabilitation of elephants—was, in my opinion, a just and humane outcome. The judicial assurance that Mahadevi will now receive the care, companionship, and dignity denied to her is a triumph for animal rights and for constitutional morality.
But beyond Mahadevi, this judgment signals a much-needed evolution in our moral and legal consciousness. As I have long argued, customs and rituals, no matter how deeply ingrained, must be continually reassessed in light of contemporary values and ethical standards. The High Court’s decision is a vital reminder that our obligation is to ensure that the rights and dignity of all sentient beings are upheld—tradition cannot, and must not, justify cruelty.
