Taking strong exception to the inhuman manner in which the 65-year-old temple elephant Gomathy was shifted to the Elephant Care Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre at MR Palayam in Trichy, the Madras High Court has sought the Forest Department to take appropriate action against the said alleged offenders in the form of criminal prosecution and other Acts.
Madras High Court
Chennai:
Also, recording the submission of the Special Government Pleader (Forest) that the elephant Gomathy was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of Sudhakar /chawadi and Thyagu one of the Mahouts resulting in her being shifted with great difficulty on January 19, the bench said “It prima facie appears that Thyagu/Mahout and Sudhakar/Chawadi have not treated the elephant properly and that the temple administration has failed to extend full cooperation in shifting ‘Gomathy’ from their custody to the Elephant Care Centre.”
Based on this the bench suo motu impleaded both the persons as respondents in the case. On issuing notice to them returnable by March 06, the bench led by Justice Sathyanarayanan directed the manager of the mutt and mahout Thyagu to be present in court on that day.
The Special Government Pleader (Forest) had submitted that Thyagu, one of the Mahouts left the said centre midway and ‘Gomathy’ is now under the care and custody of Sudhakar/Chawadi and he is also not extending any cooperation.
However, the Forest Department has forced him to give command for the reason that ‘Gomathy’ all along obeyed his commands and all of a sudden, it cannot be subject to another person’s command and in this regard, services of persons at Anamalai are being used to train and give confidence to the said elephant, the counsel said.
SP Chockalingam, counsel appearing for the review petitioner submit that it is not the way in which a captive elephant shall be treated and for the reasons best known to them, the Mutt Administration is not evincing any interest despite the fact that they were under obligation to maintain the elephant.
Regards finding out the status of all elephants that were kept in captivity inj temples, Zoos, circuses and in private custody, it was represented that Ajay Desai, Elephant Scientist, seek more time to file status report.
Days after Darbar movie distributors upped their ante seeking actor Rajinikanth and director A R Murugadoss to compensate for the cumulative loss of Rs 25 crore they have suffered, the latter has moved the Madras High Court seeking police protection at both his office and residence. Justice P Rajamanickam before whom the plea came up for hearing on Thursday ordered notice the Chennai Commissioner of Police returnable by February 10. Murugadoss in his plea had submitted that his role in Darbar was confined to that of a director and he had neither indulged in any distribution activity or received money from anyone. But, on February 3, as many as 25 persons claiming to be distributors barged into his office at Teynampet and hurled abuses thereby striking fear in the minds of the staff, he said. He further submitted that in a similar manner over 15 unidentified men assembled in front of his residence at Saligrammam and raised slogans. Also, referring to the onslaught on the social media aimed at tarnishing his name, he sought the court to direct the Commissioner of Police to grant him adequate police protection at both his residence and office.
A division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice M M Sundresh, said, “A perusal of the status report would give out a very disturbing feature for the reason that the female elephant, Gomathy, who was under the care and custody of the Mahalingaswamy Temple at Tiruvidaimaruthur in Kumbakonam was shifted in pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and the Mahouts, Chawadi and the temple administration did not extend their cooperation.”
Also, recording the submission of the Special Government Pleader (Forest) that the elephant Gomathy was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of Sudhakar /chawadi and Thyagu one of the Mahouts resulting in her being shifted with great difficulty on January 19, the bench said “It prima facie appears that Thyagu/Mahout and Sudhakar/Chawadi have not treated the elephant properly and that the temple administration has failed to extend full cooperation in shifting ‘Gomathy’ from their custody to the Elephant Care Centre.”
Based on this the bench suo motu impleaded both the persons as respondents in the case. On issuing notice to them returnable by March 06, the bench led by Justice Sathyanarayanan directed the manager of the mutt and mahout Thyagu to be present in court on that day.
The Special Government Pleader (Forest) had submitted that Thyagu, one of the Mahouts left the said centre midway and ‘Gomathy’ is now under the care and custody of Sudhakar/Chawadi and he is also not extending any cooperation.
However, the Forest Department has forced him to give command for the reason that ‘Gomathy’ all along obeyed his commands and all of a sudden, it cannot be subject to another person’s command and in this regard, services of persons at Anamalai are being used to train and give confidence to the said elephant, the counsel said.
SP Chockalingam, counsel appearing for the review petitioner submit that it is not the way in which a captive elephant shall be treated and for the reasons best known to them, the Mutt Administration is not evincing any interest despite the fact that they were under obligation to maintain the elephant.
Regards finding out the status of all elephants that were kept in captivity inj temples, Zoos, circuses and in private custody, it was represented that Ajay Desai, Elephant Scientist, seek more time to file status report.
Murugadoss seeks police protection
Days after Darbar movie distributors upped their ante seeking actor Rajinikanth and director A R Murugadoss to compensate for the cumulative loss of Rs 25 crore they have suffered, the latter has moved the Madras High Court seeking police protection at both his office and residence. Justice P Rajamanickam before whom the plea came up for hearing on Thursday ordered notice the Chennai Commissioner of Police returnable by February 10. Murugadoss in his plea had submitted that his role in Darbar was confined to that of a director and he had neither indulged in any distribution activity or received money from anyone. But, on February 3, as many as 25 persons claiming to be distributors barged into his office at Teynampet and hurled abuses thereby striking fear in the minds of the staff, he said. He further submitted that in a similar manner over 15 unidentified men assembled in front of his residence at Saligrammam and raised slogans. Also, referring to the onslaught on the social media aimed at tarnishing his name, he sought the court to direct the Commissioner of Police to grant him adequate police protection at both his residence and office.