From Species Survival to Animal Welfare: Nepal's Supreme Court on the Dignified Existence of Captive Elephants

                                    Advocate Sanjay Adhikari & Ors. v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers & Ors.

CASE NO.: Writ No. 078-WO-0337 (Certiorari / Mandamus)

 COURT: Supreme Court of Nepal 

JUDGMENT DATE: Poush 2, 2082 B.S. (December 2025) 

CORAM: Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal and Justice Tek Prasad Dhungana

Facts in Brief

The petition was filed by an Assistant Professor of Conservation Law at Kathmandu School of Law, along with others associated with the Public Interest Protection Forum , as a public interest writ concerning the protection and welfare of the Asian elephant.

The petitioners contended that although Nepal is a party to CITES and has enacted the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2029 and the International Trade in Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora Control Act, 2073 with its Regulations, 2076, the authorities had failed to implement them. In particular, captive and privately owned elephants had not been registered under Rule 12 of the 2076 Regulations, unregistered elephants had not been confiscated under Rule 15, and cross-border trafficking of elephants along the Nepal–India border was continuing. They further alleged that captive elephants were routinely subjected to cruelty ,chaining, beating and goading with the ankush,  during training and tourism use. They sought mandamus and other appropriate orders directing registration, confiscation, control of trafficking, and humane, chain-free management. 

Proceedings

During the pendency of the petition, the Court had passed an interim order directing registration of all captive elephants within a month and confiscation of those left unregistered. The respondents,  the Ministry of Forests and Environment, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, the national park offices, the Nepal Police and Armed Police, the National Trust for Nature Conservation, and the United Elephant Cooperative Society, Sauraha,  replied that implementation had been disrupted by COVID-19, that Rule 12 had since been amended, and that all captive elephants (177 in total — 108 government-owned and 69 privately owned, alongside wild elephants) had now been registered.

The Court framed five issues: whether the dispute was a public interest matter; the national and international framework protecting the Asian elephant; the status of registration and protection of captive elephants; whether traditional cruelty should be discouraged in favour of chain-free, natural management; and whether a writ should be issued.

Held

The Court declined to issue the mandamus sought but issued directive orders.

On public interest, it held that the dispute concerned not private rights but the collective interest of society and future generations, engaging Article 30 (right to a clean and healthy environment) and Article 51(g) of the Constitution and the principle of intergenerational equity. Relying on Radheshyam Adhikari v. HMG and Arjun Kumar Aryal v. Office of the Prime Minister, it reiterated that whether a matter is of public interest is decided case by case, in light of the rights and freedoms conferred by the Constitution or law. As stated, 

“34. If a matter affects the wider community, public health, environment, natural resources or constitutional values, then such a matter is the subject of public concern. The issues raised in the debate are also effective implementation of laws, environmental protection, environmental rights and state. Since the matter has been considered as a matter of public responsibility and the petitioners are working on this matter. As has also been seen, it is clear that there is a complete and sufficient concern regarding this matter.

35. Protecting wildlife is not only an environmental necessity but also a necessity of modern science. Creation of natural resources for future generations (Principle of Intergenerational Equity) is also relevant. ”

The Court recognised the Asian elephant as a CITES Appendix-I endangered species and a "keystone species," and held that protecting it is a constitutional and international obligation of the State. Significantly, it adopted the modern animal welfare approach, holding that an elephant is not a mere tool for entertainment, labour or commercial use but a "sentient being" with intrinsic rights, entitled to the "five freedoms" recognised in the Animal Welfare Directive, 2073, and to a "dignified existence."   As observed, 

• “47. We need to train Traditional practices used in the past include separating young children from their mothers, S tying them to chains or ropes for long periods of time, and restricting social contact and It is found that the opportunity to demonstrate natural behavior is a source of income for those who are struggling. Therefore, follow the order, no ankus/elephant hook, flamethrower or other device Use only to cause irritation, pain, or injury to a person.
• 52. Nepal, being a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and a constitutionally and legally protected country, considers it necessary to incorporate such best practices and modern conservation principles developed in the international community into its national policy and administrative system. In particular, it is recommended that the management of domesticated animals, which are kept in chains and subjected to physical, verbal or mental torture, should be replaced by a management system that ensures the natural ã behavior, physical and mental well-being and a dignified existence of the animals. In addition, it is seen that elephant conservation should not be limited to species conservation alone but should also include habitat conservation, biodiversity conservation, human elephant management, scientific research, rehabilitation and rehabilitation centers, local community participation, and policy and institutional reforms to align with international consensus on animal welfare. 
• 21. In Myanmar, although government-owned elephants have long been used in the timber industry, changes in forest management policies and animal welfare have led to The protection, treatment and provision of services based on natural environments for the elderly, injured or disabled elephants is a priority. In this regard, Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTE) has tried to ensure the physical and mental well-being of elephants by integrating the traditional knowledge and modern veterinary services, scientific management and experience of the mahouts who have been caring for the elephants with conservation work. "

On registration, the Court found that the main grievance had been addressed: with the amended Rules and compliance with its interim order, all captive elephants stood registered. Since that claim had been satisfied, mandamus as prayed was not warranted. It cautioned, however, that registration must not remain a one-time paper formality but a continuing State obligation of monitoring and enforcement, failing which the core purpose of CITES and domestic law would be defeated.

Accordingly, the Court issued six directive orders (para 61) requiring the respondents to:

 (1) mandatorily register captive and private elephants and regulate ownership transfers; 

(2) coordinate among security and conservation bodies and maintain surveillance against cross-border trafficking along the Nepal–India border;

 (3) prevent cruelty, adopt welfare-aligned and elephant-friendly tourism, train mahouts, and establish elephant retirement and rehabilitation centres for sick and old elephants; 

(4) move captive elephants toward chain-free, natural management and ethical, observation-only sanctuaries on a phased, scientific basis;

 (5) build a coordination mechanism and clear standards for private elephant management with regular monitoring; and 

(6) protect and restore traditional and transboundary wildlife corridors, control habitat fragmentation, implement the Elephant Conservation Action Plan (2025–2035), and mitigate human–elephant conflict. 

The judgment takes Nepal's wildlife jurisprudence beyond mere species survival toward animal welfare, expressly recognising the elephant as a sentient being entitled to a dignified, chain-free existence and applying the "five freedoms" to captive animals. It holds that statutory registration duties are continuing obligations, not spent on a single act of compliance, and situates domestic protection within CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the principles of intergenerational equity and sustainable development. By issuing structured directive orders even while declining mandamus, the Court affirmed the State's positive duty to protect both wild and captive elephants and their transboundary habitat.

The Court declined to issue the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioners, but issued directive orders addressing the unresolved issues concerning elephant trafficking, monitoring, cruelty and welfare.

Access Case Here.