Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenge to High Powered Committee’s Jurisdiction: Affirms Supreme Court’s Pan India Authority Over Elephant Welfare, Transfer, and Rehabilitation, Rejects Per Incuriam Claim Against National Oversight

1. Court’s Decision

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the jurisdiction of the High Powered Committee (HPC) established by the Supreme Court. The court affirmed that the HPC has Pan India jurisdiction to oversee and resolve issues concerning the welfare, transfer, and rehabilitation of elephants, as mandated by Supreme Court orders.

The court stated:

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the above Orders after due consideration of the applicable laws with a view to ensure animal welfare.”
The High Court further noted that, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, these Supreme Court directives are binding on all courts, including the High Court.

The petition was dismissed, holding that the HPC has the authority to make decisions and issue directives regarding elephants in Kerala, including issues of welfare, transport, and grievances raised by any party.

2. Facts

The case arose when the petitioner, an advocate and public-spirited individual, filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court seeking to restrict the jurisdiction of the HPC in Kerala.

Key Facts:

1. The HPC was originally constituted by the Tripura High Court in Sudipa Nath v. Union of India (2022) to address issues related to the welfare and transfer of elephants, particularly in Northeast India.
2. The Supreme Court expanded the jurisdiction of the HPC in Muruly M S v. State of Karnataka (2023) to grant it Pan India powers to deal with elephant-related issues nationally.
3. The petitioner argued that the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012, provided a sufficient framework for regulating elephant welfare in Kerala, making the HPC’s intervention unnecessary.
4. The petitioner claimed that Supreme Court judgments expanding the HPC’s jurisdiction were passed without considering Kerala-specific rules, thus rendering them per incuriam.

3. Issues

The court identified the following key issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the HPC has jurisdiction over elephant welfare matters in Kerala.
2. Whether the Supreme Court’s orders expanding the HPC’s jurisdiction to Kerala were per incuriam for not considering the Kerala Captive Elephants Rules, 2012.

4. Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner advanced the following arguments:

1. Kerala Rules as a Complete Framework:
   • The Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012, comprehensively address issues related to the ownership, upkeep, veterinary care, and transport of elephants.
   • These rules make the intervention of the HPC unnecessary in Kerala.
2. Per Incuriam Challenge:
   • The Supreme Court orders expanding the HPC’s jurisdiction were rendered without considering the Kerala-specific rules and were therefore per incuriam (i.e., passed in disregard of relevant statutory provisions).
3. Unreasonable Restrictions:
   • Requiring compliance with the HPC would impose unconstitutional administrative burdens on elephant owners in Kerala, violating their fundamental rights.
   • Elephant owners should not be required to seek HPC approval for the transfer or transport of elephants.
4. Lack of Jurisdiction for the HPC in Kerala:
   • The HPC was established for specific purposes related to Northeast India, and its jurisdiction should not extend to Kerala.

5. Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, including the State of Kerala, countered as follows:

1. Binding Nature of Supreme Court Orders:
   • Supreme Court directives are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution and cannot be challenged by the High Court.
   • The Supreme Court has explicitly expanded the HPC’s jurisdiction to a Pan India level, including Kerala.
2. HPC’s Mandate:
   • The HPC was constituted as an expert body to address issues of elephant welfare, transfer, and rehabilitation across India.
   • Its jurisdiction complements, rather than conflicts with, state-level rules like the Kerala Captive Elephants Rules, 2012.
3. National Consistency:
   • The HPC ensures uniform application of rules and prevents forum shopping by litigants through frivolous petitions.

6. Analysis of the Law

The court evaluated the following key legal aspects:

1. Kerala Captive Elephants Rules, 2012:
   • These rules provide a comprehensive framework for elephant welfare in Kerala, addressing issues like ownership, veterinary care, and transportation.
   • However, the court found that these rules do not conflict with the HPC’s jurisdiction, as the latter ensures consistent application of welfare standards nationwide.
2. Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction under Article 141:
   • The court highlighted the binding nature of Supreme Court directives under Article 141.
   • The orders expanding the HPC’s jurisdiction were passed after careful consideration of applicable laws and are binding on all courts, including the Kerala High Court.
3. Per Incuriam Argument:
   • The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Supreme Court orders were per incuriam, noting that these orders had been issued after comprehensive deliberation and consideration of the law.

7. Precedent Analysis

The court analyzed several key judgments:

1. Sudipa Nath v. Union of India (2022):
   • The Tripura High Court originally constituted the HPC to address issues related to the transfer of elephants.
2. Muruly M S v. State of Karnataka (2023):
   • The Supreme Court expanded the jurisdiction of the HPC to a Pan India level, ensuring national uniformity in elephant welfare.
3. Subsequent Supreme Court Orders:
   • Additional orders reinforced the HPC’s jurisdiction and clarified its mandate to address all issues related to elephant welfare, including transport, ownership certificates, and rehabilitation.

8. Court’s Reasoning

1. HPC’s Jurisdiction:
   • The court affirmed that the HPC has Pan India jurisdiction to address issues related to elephant welfare, including in Kerala.
2. Kerala Rules vs. HPC Mandate:
   • The court held that the Kerala Captive Elephants Rules, 2012, do not conflict with the HPC’s jurisdiction. Instead, the HPC complements these rules by providing expert guidance and ensuring uniform welfare standards.
3. Supreme Court’s Directives:
   • The court reiterated that Supreme Court orders are binding on all courts and cannot be declared per incuriam by a High Court.

9. Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the HPC has the authority to address all elephant welfare issues in Kerala. It emphasized that the HPC’s decisions must be respected and implemented by all authorities.

10. Implications

1. Reinforcement of Supreme Court Authority:
   • The judgment underscores the binding nature of Supreme Court directives under Article 141, ensuring consistency in their application.
2. Strengthening Elephant Welfare:
   • By upholding the HPC’s jurisdiction, the judgment reinforces national efforts to ensure the welfare and rehabilitation of elephants.
3. Clarity on State vs. Central Jurisdiction:
   • The judgment clarifies that state-level rules do not override national mandates for uniform animal welfare standards.

This decision reinforces the HPC as a Pan India authority, ensuring consistency and expertise in addressing elephant welfare issues across states.

Also Read – Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Trial Court’s Order: Affirms That Insufficiently Stamped Documents Can Be Impounded Even After Admission; Remits Case for Reconsideration of Compliance with Stamp Duty Laws