The Elephant in the Room Finally Has Standing

  In a first, Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal accepts an elephant as a petitioner

 Center for Eco-Cultural Studies and Another v. Hon. Attorney General and Others, CA (Writ) App. No. 318/2025, decided 10 September 2026

It is rare for a judgment to list an elephant among the petitioners. But this is exactly what Justice Dr D.F.H. Gunawardhana of the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka did on 10 September 2026. In a precedent-setting judgment, the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka (the second-highest court in the country) accepted that the second petitioner, Elephant X (Elephas maximus maximus), residing in the Gal Oya and Minneriya area, has the locus standi to be a petitioner in the case. The Court allowed the first petitioner, the Centre for Eco-Cultural Studies, to represent the elephant (the second petitioner) “as the next best friend, who cannot physically come and make an application before this Court”. The Court observed: 

“(The Elephant) who physically cannot come and make an application before this Court, despite the fact that the 2nd Petitioner is considered as one of the most intelligent animals on Earth; the main differences between a human and the 2nd Petitioner and its relatives are that humans communicate with its own species using its own language whilst the 2nd Petitioner cannot understand and communicate using this human language…”

The case arose from a night-time collision between the Batticaloa–Colombo "Meenagaya" express train and a herd of elephants. According to the petitioners, six elephants died on the spot. Two, including the second petitioner, were seriously injured, and the other injured elephant later died, "thereby resulting in the deaths of seven elephants all together." 

The Court accepted that "the 2nd Petitioner (the Elephant) has a personal interest in the litigation." According to the Court: 

The 2nd Petitioner's grievance before this Court epitomizes the threat that the 2nd Petitioner and his relatives face, not only of death but also of extinction. Therefore, it is our duty to protect the 2nd Petitioner.

Can an Elephant Seek Rights in Court?

The most striking part of the judgment is its opening discussion of animal standing. The Court acknowledged the existing legal position plainly: "animals are considered property in Sri Lanka; even ownership of an elephant can be acquired or transferred once a wild elephant is domesticated."

It then identified the open question: "there is still a question as to whether an elephant can seek to have rights declared by a court of law, unless such rights are recognised by the courts depending on the source of law." The Court noted the wider debate and observed that "in some jurisdictions, their rights have been recognised, including the right to life, despite the fact that they cannot appear before a court and make a complaint." In a footnote, it referred to decisions from Ecuador, India, Argentina and Pakistan, including the Mona Estrellita case and the case of Sandra the Orangutan.

The judgment does not expressly declare that elephants are legal persons. It does, however, proceed on the basis that "2nd Petitioner is represented by the 1st Petitioner as a next friend," and it ultimately speaks of a judicial duty owed to the elephant itself. The petitioners also made a pointed assertion: elephants and other animals "cannot come forward and make complaints in the Courts of Law, where the law courts are supposedly meant for humans."

Directions of the Court: The Court spelt out a series of actions to be undertaken by various government departments, including the Railways, to minimise elephant deaths. These included training for train drivers and disciplinary action against those who violate the norms.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is significant because it does not get drawn into an academic debate on standing, or locus standi, but instead treats the elephant as a petitioner and addresses the concerns of the elephant and her relatives, whose very existence is at risk.

Editor’s Note: At a time when judicial innovation on the environment is at its lowest, and courts are more interested in balancing ‘environment’ and ‘development’ than in interpreting the law, one can hope that the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka has an impact well beyond the island, so that the distant relatives of the second petitioner are safe across borders.