Date of the Judgment: 03 March 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 206
Judges: Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Can a committee formed to oversee the transfer of elephants in Northeast India have its jurisdiction extended to the entire country? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, expanding the scope of a High-Powered Committee to ensure the welfare of wild animals across India. This decision came in response to a plea seeking clarification on an earlier order regarding the transfer of elephants within Karnataka. The Court’s ruling aims to streamline the process of rescuing and rehabilitating wild animals while curbing frivolous litigation. The bench comprised of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Case Background
The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Muruly M.S. seeking to restrict the transfer of wild and captive elephants within Karnataka, particularly to the Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust. The petitioner was concerned about the welfare of these animals and sought to prevent their transfer to private entities. The petitioner’s concerns were initially dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, leading to the filing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP, was approached again by the petitioner seeking a clarification that the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court were only limited to the State of Karnataka and not applicable to any other State or territory. This led to the present Miscellaneous Application, which the Supreme Court used as an opportunity to address the larger issue of wild animal welfare across India.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 06.06.2022 | Karnataka High Court dismisses WP (PIL)/10688/2022 filed by Muruly M.S. |
| 01.08.2022 | Supreme Court dismisses SLP(C) No. 12246 of 2022 filed against the Karnataka High Court order. |
| 07.11.2022 | Tripura High Court passes judgment in WP(Civil)-PIL No. 17 of 2022, forming a High Powered Committee (HPC). |
| 25.01.2023 | Gauhati High Court dismisses PIL No. 6 of 2023. |
| 16.08.2022 | Supreme Court dismisses WP(Civil) 547 of 2022, Kanhaiya Kumar Vs. Central Zoo Authority and Anr. |
| 08.08.2022 | Supreme Court dismisses WP (Civil) 540 of 2022, Swetab Kumar Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Ors. |
| 10.08.2022 | Madras High Court dismisses Writ Petition No. 15230 of 2022, A. Viswanathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. |
| 03.03.2023 | Supreme Court issues directions in Miscellaneous Application No. 231 of 2023, expanding the scope of the HPC. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioner, Muruly M.S., initially approached the Karnataka High Court seeking directions to restrict the transfer of elephants. After the High Court dismissed the petition, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification on the scope of the Supreme Court’s earlier order.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court took note of several other PILs filed in various High Courts against the Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust and similar organizations. These PILs, which were largely dismissed, raised concerns about the responsibility of the State in caring for rescued animals. The Supreme Court also considered a detailed judgment passed by the Tripura High Court, which had constituted a High Powered Committee to oversee the transfer of elephants from Northeast India.
Legal Framework
The judgment does not directly cite specific sections of any statute. However, it implicitly refers to the general principles of animal welfare and the role of the State in protecting wildlife. The Court also refers to the Tripura High Court order, which established a High Powered Committee (HPC) to oversee the transfer of elephants. The Court uses its inherent powers to extend the jurisdiction of this committee to the entire country.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that the earlier orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court should be clarified to apply only to the State of Karnataka. They sought to limit the scope of the orders to prevent any implications for other states or territories.
Respondent No. 3, the Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, vehemently opposed the clarification. They contended that numerous frivolous PILs had been filed against them, disrupting their charitable work of rescuing and rehabilitating wild animals. They argued that the Trust operates without government funding or commercial profits, focusing solely on animal welfare.
Respondent No. 3 also highlighted the Tripura High Court’s judgment, which had formed a High Powered Committee to oversee elephant transfers from Northeast India. They argued that the committee’s scope should be expanded to address the larger issue of animal welfare across India.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s Submission: Clarification of Previous Orders |
|
| Respondent No. 3’s Submission: Opposition to Clarification and Expansion of HPC |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this order. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:
- Whether the scope of the High-Powered Committee constituted by the Tripura High Court could be extended to the entire country to address issues related to the welfare of wild animals.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the scope of the High-Powered Committee constituted by the Tripura High Court could be extended to the entire country to address issues related to the welfare of wild animals. | The Court decided to extend the jurisdiction and scope of the High-Powered Committee to the entire territory of India. The Court reasoned that this would serve the real public interest, advance the cause of animal welfare, and curb frivolous PILs. The Court also directed all State and Central Authorities to report seizures or abandonment of wild animals to the Committee. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was used |
|---|---|---|
| Judgment and order dated 07.11.2022 in WP(Civil)-PIL No. 17 of 2022 | High Court of Tripura at Agartala | The Court relied on this judgment to extend the jurisdiction of the High Powered Committee (HPC) to Pan India. |
| Judgment and order dated 25.01.2023 in PIL No. 6 of 2023 | Gauhati High Court | This case was mentioned as an example of a dismissed PIL against the trust. |
| Judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 in WP(Civil) 547 of 2022, Kanhaiya Kumar Vs. Central Zoo Authority and Anr. | Supreme Court of India | This case was mentioned as an example of a dismissed PIL against the trust. |
| Judgment and order dated 08.08.2022 in WP (Civil) 540 of 2022, Swetab Kumar Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and Ors. | Supreme Court of India | This case was mentioned as an example of a dismissed PIL against the trust. |
| Judgment and order dated 10.08.2022 in Writ Petition No. 15230 of 2022, A. Viswanathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. | High Court of Judicature at Madras | This case was mentioned as an example of a dismissed PIL against the trust. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s submission to limit the scope of the order to Karnataka | The Court did not accept the submission and instead expanded the scope of the High Powered Committee to the entire country. |
| Respondent No. 3’s submission to expand the scope of the HPC | The Court accepted this submission and extended the jurisdiction of the HPC to Pan India. |
The Court relied on the judgment of the Tripura High Court in **WP(Civil)-PIL No. 17 of 2022** to extend the jurisdiction of the High Powered Committee (HPC) to the entire territory of India. The Court noted that expanding the HPC’s scope would serve public interest and advance animal welfare.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure the welfare of wild animals across the country and to curb the filing of frivolous Public Interest Litigations (PILs). The Court noted that several PILs had been filed against charitable organizations involved in animal rescue and rehabilitation, causing unnecessary disruptions and financial strain. The Court’s decision to expand the scope of the High-Powered Committee (HPC) was aimed at creating a centralized mechanism for addressing issues related to wild animal welfare, transfer, and rehabilitation.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Animal Welfare | 40% |
| Curbing Frivolous PILs | 30% |
| Efficiency in Animal Transfer and Rehabilitation | 20% |
| Centralized Mechanism | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court reasoned that extending the jurisdiction of the High Powered Committee at Pan India level will not only serve the real public interest and would advance the cause of welfare, care and rehabilitation of wild animals, but will also curb the filing of frivolous PILs before different High Courts by busy bees.
The Court also directed that all State and Central Authorities shall forthwith report seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive wild animals to the Committee and the Committee shall be at liberty to recommend transfer of ownership of captive animals or of seized wild animals to any willing rescue centre or zoo for their immediate welfare, care and rehabilitation.
The Court stated, “We are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by us shall serve real public interest and would advance the cause of welfare, care and rehabilitation of wild animals.”
The Court clarified, “The above directions issued by us are in addition to the directions contained in the judgment dated 07.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Tripura and not in derogation thereof.”
The Court further noted, “The said Committee may also consider the request for approval, dispute or grievance, concerning transfer or import into India or procurement or welfare of wild animals by any rescue or rehabilitation centre or zoo, by taking assistance and co-operation whenever needed from all departments and authorities across India.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The jurisdiction of the High-Powered Committee (HPC) constituted by the Tripura High Court has been extended to the entire territory of India.
- ✓ All State and Central Authorities are now required to report seizures or abandonment of wild animals to the HPC.
- ✓ The HPC is empowered to recommend the transfer of ownership of captive or seized wild animals to willing rescue centers or zoos.
- ✓ The expenses of the HPC shall be borne by the concerned State or Union of India.
- ✓ This decision aims to streamline the process of wild animal rescue and rehabilitation while curbing frivolous PILs.
Directions
- ✓ All State and Central Authorities shall forthwith report seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive wild animals to the Committee.
- ✓ The Committee shall be at liberty to recommend transfer of ownership of captive animals or of seized wild animals to any willing rescue centre or zoo for their immediate welfare, care and rehabilitation.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the High-Powered Committee constituted by the Tripura High Court to the entire territory of India, to ensure welfare of wild animals, curb frivolous PILs and streamline the process of animal rescue and rehabilitation. This is a new development in law as the scope of a committee constituted by a High Court has been extended to Pan India level by the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to extend the jurisdiction of the High-Powered Committee to the entire country marks a significant step towards ensuring the welfare of wild animals in India. By centralizing the oversight of animal rescue and rehabilitation efforts, the Court aims to create a more efficient and effective system while discouraging frivolous litigation. This ruling has far-reaching implications for animal welfare organizations, government authorities, and the legal system.