The Karnataka High Court has sought a response from the
The Karnataka High Court has sought a response from the State Government on a plea challenging direction to hand over an elephant in the temple to the forest department.
The Bench comprising of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice NS Sanjay Gowda observed that elephants do not belong to temples but rather to forests.
The court remarked “Elephant belongs in the forest and not in the temple“
The petitioner contended that the elephant was used for the purpose of pooja and nothing other than that.
The court observed that the elephant is meant to be in the company of other animals hence keeping it away from its natural habitat is cruelty.
In this case, the petitioner is the founder trustees of the Sri Kalika Durga Parameshwari Temple Vidyaranyapura Tindlu Bangalore had purchased an elephant from Kerala Forest Department dated in 2002, in due compliance with Wildlife Protection Act. Later the Principal Secretary on 10th August 2018 Muzarai Department passed an order under Section 43 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 declaring the institution as a Muzarai institution.
The petitioner had challenged the above order before the Karnataka High Court. Wherein the court had passed an interim order directing the respondents to not take any steps to take possession of the elephant without express permission from the court.
The Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District and Assistant Commissioner, Muzarai Kamagarigalu who were the respondents intimated to the forest officials that there was a change of ownership with respect to the Kalika Durga Parameshwari Temple and the elephant was no longer required for any pooja purposes and therefore, it has to be taken back.
Therefore the Chief Conservator of Forest passed an order under sections 39(3), 40(1) and (2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act to hand over the elephant to the forest department.
Thus by the way of this current petition, this order of the forest department was challenged, stating that the order was solely passed on the ground of change in ownership.
The state government notified the court that the elephant will be shifted to the rehabilitation centre where care and medical treatment shall be provided.
