Editorial: If you love 'em, free 'em

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has done the right thing by ignoring popular sentiment and dismissing an appeal against entrusting the care of an old temple elephant to the care of an animal welfare centre run by the Reliance Foundation.

The case of elephant Madhuri is typical of the anthropomorphism that characterises human-animal relationships in India, and the judiciary was right to override human emotions and prioritise animal welfare.

Madhuri — also called Mahadevi — spent 33 years in captivity at the Shri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Jain Math in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, after being brought there as a calf torn from her mother around 1992. She lived much of her life chained and alone in a concrete enclosure.

She was regularly used for religious ceremonies and processions as well as for commercial activities such as parades. Eyewitness and veterinary reports documented that she was controlled with a banned metal ankush (spiked stick).

Her keepers reportedly rented her out to perform poojas, monetising her labour. She was frequently transported between states, often without proper permissions, which attracted legal scrutiny and animal welfare complaints from organisations like PETA India.

The elephant’s health deteriorated over the years: veterinarians found open wounds, arthritis, overgrown nails, foot rot, lameness, and visible psychological distress, including symptoms of zoochosis, an abnormal repetitive behaviour caused by captivity.

In 2017, Madhuri fatally injured the head priest of the math when he tried to feed her when her keeper was on leave.

Repeated complaints from animal welfare organisations and intervention by the Ministry of Environment’s High-Powered Committee ultimately resulted in a Bombay High Court order in July 2025, which was upheld last week by the Supreme Court, mandating Madhuri’s relocation to the Vantara sanctuary in Jamnagar, Gujarat. This facility is a wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centre specialising in geriatric and abused elephants.

Before the elephant was transported to her new home at Vantara, local villagers and functionaries of the Digambar Jain sect organised a campaign opposing her relocation. Videos and news reports from Kolhapur described local villagers weeping at her farewell, likening it to bidding farewell to a fond daughter.

Some observers said there were tears in the elephant’s eyes too — a physiological occurrence often mistaken for emotion. Other opponents of Madhuri’s transfer argued that the use of elephants in rituals is an ancient historic custom that must be respected.

The argument of customary practice is hard to engage with because of religious sensitivities. Indeed, elephants and horses have been used in religious and royal ceremonies for centuries.

However, in today’s practice, animals have often been misused despite their use in sacred functions. It is also common for animals to be kept for rental purposes, agnostic to any particular religion.

Madhuri, for instance, was frequently rented out by her Jain keepers for Muharram processions and Ayyappa ceremonies in Hyderabad. When primarily kept in captivity for rent, what separates the keeper of an elephant from the madari or the snake-charmer?

By ordering Madhuri’s rehabilitation at Vantara, the Supreme Court has rightly prioritised animal welfare over religious considerations. Now it must go a step further and order audits of all animals kept in captivity by religious groups, zoos, private individuals and circuses. Going further, it would be a humane thing to do to ban all forms of animal captivity.