ORDER : 1. ‘Treblinka’ is infamous for being the second-deadliest extermination camp to be built and operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II. In the introduction to the book ‘Zoopolis - A Political Theory of Animal Rights’ the authors [Zoopolis - A Political Theory of Animal Rights - Sue Donaldson & Will Kymlicka (2011), Oxford University Press] refer to the work of Charles Patterson [Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust - Patterson, Charles (2002), Lantern Books, New York] in the following words: “In Charles Patterson’s provocative words, the general state of human-animal relations is best characterized as an ‘Eternal Treblinka” This case and the orders that we have been called upon to issue from time to time regarding captive elephants lead us to conclude that the life of an elephant in captivity is an ‘Eternal Treblinka’. 2. This case has been listed today for considering the issue of certain directions for the effective implementation of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2012 Rules’) and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and others Vs. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 716 . We have heard Sri. Asok M Cherian, the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. Hariraj M.R the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Additional 10th respondent, the learned amicus curiae and other learned counsel appearing for the parties. Though the Kerala Elephant Owners Federation was impleaded as the additional 24th respondent on its own application, Sri. Sreekumar Chelur, the learned Counsel appearing for the additional 24th respondent submits that the said organization is not interested in being a party to these proceedings and wishes to withdraw from these proceedings. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the additional 24th respondent that he will place on record a copy of the resolution of the organization seeking to withdraw from these proceedings, we have not passed any order today on the basis of his submission. We have also heard Sri. Renjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in I.A No. 34 of 2024 which is an interlocutory application to implead the applicant therein as additional respondent in the Writ Petition. Though we have not allowed the said application for impleading, we have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel. We have also heard Sri. Renjith Thampan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in I.A No. 34 of 2024 which is an interlocutory application to implead the applicant therein as additional respondent in the Writ Petition. Though we have not allowed the said application for impleading, we have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel. The learned Additional Advocate General states that the framing of new Rules to replace the 2012 Rules is gaining the attention of the Government and that a meeting of all stakeholders is proposed soon and, therefore, this matter may be adjourned. However, we are not inclined to adjourn this matter. Time and again and for nearly one and a half years this Court has been informed that the State is in the process of overhauling the 2012 Rules. However, we are informed that the authorities are dragging their feet reportedly at the behest of pressure groups including associations of elephant owners who want the 2012 Rules to be further diluted while the need of the hour was to make it more stringent. We believe that the issuance of directions for the proper implementation of the 2012 Rules has become imperative for reasons that are indicated hereunder. Sri Renjith Thampan contends that the Court should not make law. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India & Anr. (2020) 13 SCC 585 in support of this contention. We do not consider this submission of Mr.Renjith Thampan to be of any moment as even if we were to issue certain additional directions to ensure the proper working of the 2012 Rules, the same would also be justified on authority of the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 161 where it was held: 114. Apart from the power to make subordinate legislation as a delegate of the legislature, do the superior courts make law or is it entirely tabooed? In other words, when the court decides a lis, is the function of the court merely to apply law to the facts as found or do courts also make law? The theory that the courts cannot or do not make laws is a myth which has been exploded a long while ago. 115. In other words, when the court decides a lis, is the function of the court merely to apply law to the facts as found or do courts also make law? The theory that the courts cannot or do not make laws is a myth which has been exploded a long while ago. 115. We may only in this regard refer to what S.B. Sinha, J. opined on behalf of this Court in the decision reported in State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht, (2007) 6 SCC 586 : (SCC pp. 617-619, Paras 77-78 & 83) “77. Separation of powers is a favourite topic for some of us. Each organ of the State in terms of the constitutional scheme performs one or the other functions which have been assigned to the other organ. Although drafting of legislation and its implementation by and large are functions of the legislature and the executive respectively, it is too late in the day to say that the constitutional court's role in that behalf is non-existent. The Judge-made law is now well recognised throughout the world. If one is to put the doctrine of separation of power to such a rigidity, it would not have been possible for any superior court of any country, whether developed or developing, to create new rights through interpretative process. 78. Separation of powers in one sense is a limit on active jurisdiction of each organ. But it has another deeper and more relevant purpose : to act as check and balance over the activities of other organs. Thereby the active jurisdiction of the organ is not challenged; nevertheless there are methods of prodding to communicate the institution of its excesses and shortfall in duty. Constitutional mandate sets the dynamics of this communication between the organs of polity. Therefore, it is suggested to not understand separation of powers as operating in vacuum. Separation of powers doctrine has been reinvented in modern times. *** *** *** 83. If we notice the evolution of separation of powers doctrine, traditionally the checks and balances dimension was only associated with governmental excesses and violations. But in today's world of positive rights and justifiable social and economic entitlements, hybrid administrative bodies, private functionaries discharging public functions, we have to perform the oversight function with more urgency and enlarge the field of checks and balances to include governmental inaction. But in today's world of positive rights and justifiable social and economic entitlements, hybrid administrative bodies, private functionaries discharging public functions, we have to perform the oversight function with more urgency and enlarge the field of checks and balances to include governmental inaction. Otherwise we envisage the country getting transformed into a state of repose. Social engineering as well as institutional engineering therefore forms part of this obligation.” 116-121........ 122. In the work, The Nature of the Judicial Process by Benjamin N. Cardozo, in the lecture, “The Method of Sociology - The Judge as a Legislator” Justice Cardozo observes under the following subject: “THE JUDGE AS A LEGISLATOR ........No doubt the limits for the Judge are narrower. He legislates only between gaps. He fills the open spaces in the law. How far he may go without travelling beyond the walls of the interstices cannot be staked out for him upon a chart. He must learn it for himself as he gains the sense of fitness and proportion that comes with years of habitude in the practice of an art. Even within the gaps, restrictions not easy to define, but felt, however impalpable they may be, by every Judge and lawyer, hedge and circumscribe his action. They are established by the traditions of the centuries, by the example of other Judges, his predecessors and his colleagues, by the collective judgment of the profession, and by the duty of adherence to the pervading spirit of the law. ........The process, being legislative, demands the legislator's wisdom. ........Customs, no matter how firmly established, are not law, they say, until adopted by the courts. Even statutes are not law because the courts must fix their meaning. That is the view of Gray in his Nature and Sources of the Law. “The true view, as I submit” he says, “is that the law is what the Judges declare; that statutes, precedents, the opinions of learned experts, customs and morality are the sources of the law.” So, Jethro Brown in a Paper on “Law and Evolution” tells us that a statute, till construed, is not real law. It is only “ostensible” law, real law, he says, is not found anywhere except in the judgment of a court..... ........They have the right to legislate within gaps, but often there are no gaps. It is only “ostensible” law, real law, he says, is not found anywhere except in the judgment of a court..... ........They have the right to legislate within gaps, but often there are no gaps. We shall have a false view of the landscape if we look at the waste spaces only, and refuse to see the acres already sown and fruitful. ........The Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodised by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to “the primordial necessity of order in the social life”. Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains.” We are clear in our mind, in the facts of the present case, that we are not in the process of making any law while issuing the directions that we propose to issue in this case. At best, we are only filling up the ‘gaps’. We are only ensuring the proper implementation of the 2012 Rules also taking note of the fact that though the Supreme Court had directed its strict implementation as early as on 18.08.2015, the State and its officials have failed to implement the directions and have in fact conveniently chosen to ignore the directions issued by the Supreme Court. 3. In Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and others Vs. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 716 , the Supreme Court, took note of the extreme cruelties being meted out to captive elephants in the State of Kerala. As early as on 18.8.2015 the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to ensure that captive elephants are not subjected to any cruelty in the name of parading them. It would be apposite, for the purposes of this order, to extract the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its order dated 18.08.2015. They read thus: “8. As early as on 18.8.2015 the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to ensure that captive elephants are not subjected to any cruelty in the name of parading them. It would be apposite, for the purposes of this order, to extract the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its order dated 18.08.2015. They read thus: “8. As far as the present issue is concerned, we are inclined to direct that the Chief Wildlife Warden shall see to it that all the captive elephants existing in the State of Kerala are counted and in the absence of obtainment of requisite certificate under Section 42 of the 1972 Act and the declaration made under Section 40, appropriate action shall be initiated against the owners. 9. At this juncture, we may note with profit that a set of Rules, namely, the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 (for short “the Rules”) has been framed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the 1972 Act. Rule 4 of the said Rules deals with upkeep and veterinary care of elephants. Rule 8 provides for duties and responsibilities of owner. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 8 which is relevant for the present purpose is as follows: “8. (13) Every owner shall maintain an Elephant Data Book as specified by the Chief Wildlife Warden for each captive elephant.” The purpose of referring to the said Rule is that an owner of an elephant, apart from following the other statutory enactments and the procedure laid down therein, is also required to maintain an elephant data book, as defined in Rule 2(f) of the Rules specified by the Chief Wildlife Warden for each captive elephant. The said Rule shall be religiously followed failing which the authorities shall take appropriate action against the said person. Rule 9 deals with transport norms for elephants. 10. Rule 10 provides for constitution of the District Committee. As we find, the purpose of the said Rule is to deal with the cases of cruelty meted out to the captive elephants and the constitution of the Committee is heterogeneous in nature. We have been apprised that in addition to the members as per the 2012 Rules, at present (from January 2015), a representative of the Animal Welfare Board of India has been included apart from other authorities. We have been apprised that in addition to the members as per the 2012 Rules, at present (from January 2015), a representative of the Animal Welfare Board of India has been included apart from other authorities. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 which is extremely pertinent for the present purpose is reproduced below: “10. (4) The District Committee shall take necessary measures, to ensure that the Festival Committee constituted for the smooth conduct of festivals or the persons organising such functions in which elephants are exposed, shall adhere to the following: (i) There shall be sufficient space between elephants used in processions and parades. (ii) No elephants in musth shall be used in connection with festivals. (iii) Elephant which is sick, injured, weak or pregnant shall not be used. (iv) Chains and hobbles with spikes or barbs shall not be used for tethering elephants. (v) Elephants shall not be made to walk on tarred roads during hot sun for a long duration without rest. (vi) Making an elephant stand in scorching sun for long durations or bursting crackers near the elephants for ceremonial purpose shall not be permitted. (vii) It shall be ensured that sufficient food and water for the elephants are provided. (viii) The Committee shall ensure that the flambeaus (Theevetty) are held away from elephants. (ix) There shall be facility to keep elephants under shade during hot sun. (x) It shall be ensured that adequate protection to the elephants taking part in celebrations through volunteers is provided for the purpose. (xi) Services of veterinary doctor from the elephant squads shall be ensured in cases where five or more elephants are engaged in the festivals. (xii) It shall be informed to the nearest Forest Range Officer/Police Officers about the proposed festivals/celebrations at least 72 hours in advance. (xiii) During the time of procession the elephants shall have chains (Idachangala and Malachangala) tied to their leg. (xiv) It shall be ensured that the mahouts are not intoxicated while handling elephants. (xv) The weaned calf below 1.5 m height shall not be engaged for festival purposes. (xvi) Sufficient rest has to be given to the elephants which are engaged for ‘Para procession’. Para procession shall be restricted to 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. only. (xvii) During nighttime, generators shall be provided to avoid any contingency due to failure of general power supply. (xvi) Sufficient rest has to be given to the elephants which are engaged for ‘Para procession’. Para procession shall be restricted to 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. only. (xvii) During nighttime, generators shall be provided to avoid any contingency due to failure of general power supply. (xviii) It shall be ensured that elephants are brought under public liability insurance scheme for an amount of Rs 3.00 lakhs to each elephant.” On a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is clear as crystal that it obliges the District Committee to take necessary measures to ensure that the Festival Committee constituted for smooth conduct of the festivals or the persons organising such functions in which elephants are exposed are required to adhere to many a measure. The District Committee is bound by the Rules and see to it that the festival committees follow the same. 11. At this juncture, a question arose whether the temples or the Devaswom shall get themselves registered with the District Committee so that there would be effective and proper control. We think that they should be registered with the Committee and accordingly it is directed that the registration shall be done within a period of six weeks from today. The temple and Devaswom shall, apart from other formalities, also mention how many elephants it is going to use in any festival. It will be the obligation of the State to see that the registration is carried out. It shall be the duty of the State, the District Committee, Management of the Devaswom, the Management of the Temple and the owners of the elephants to see that no elephant is meted out with any kind of cruelty and, if it is found, apart from lodging of criminal prosecution, they shall face severe consequences which may include confiscation of the elephants to the State.” It appears that the State of Kerala has not complied with any of the directions issued. It seems that by a later order, the Supreme Court has clarified that action in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 8 of the above order may be deferred. But we have been unable to find any other order which deals with the implementation of the other directions including the direction for registration with District Committees framed in terms of the 2o12 Rules. But we have been unable to find any other order which deals with the implementation of the other directions including the direction for registration with District Committees framed in terms of the 2o12 Rules. The State has clearly violated the orders of the Supreme Court by granting repeated extensions to abide by the directions of the Supreme Court. The orders issued by the Government are couched in a language that would suggest that the officials are cracking the whip and calling for strict implementation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court while in reality, they are orders extending time, again and again, to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court. One such order namely G.O. (Ms.) No. 19/2022/F&WLD dated 20.4.2022 has been brought to our notice. On our reading, the order is nothing but a direct affront to the authority of the Supreme Court and a blatant violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 743/2014. Considering the directions issued by the Supreme Court and taking the aforesaid Government Order into consideration, and in order to provide the Government with a chance to respond, we intend to direct the Principal Secretary, Forests and Wildlife Department to place on record an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the above G.O. or any later G.O. on similar lines was issued. The affidavit shall also indicate whether the orders issued by the Supreme Court referred to above have been complied with and if not the reason for non-compliance. 4. Elephants in captivity are extensively used in religious festivals in the State of Kerala and their use is often sought to be justified on the touchstone of tradition and religious practice while in reality and sadly so, the animals are being commercially exploited without any care or concern for their well-being. We do not believe that there is any essential religious practice of any religion that mandates the use of elephants in festivals. We do not, however, propose to say anything more at this stage since our focus now is merely to regulate the practice of parading elephants during festivals. 5. We do not believe that there is any essential religious practice of any religion that mandates the use of elephants in festivals. We do not, however, propose to say anything more at this stage since our focus now is merely to regulate the practice of parading elephants during festivals. 5. If a calendar is made of temple festivals and other festivals, the calendar will indicate that over a period of at least nine months stretching from the month of September to the month of May in the following year (April and May being the cruellest of summer months in Kerala) festivals big and small, famous and non-descript are held in every nook and corner of this State and the elephant has become an essential part of such festivities. So much so that the poor animal is transported in trucks from one festival to another in quick succession mindless of its fatigue, requirement of adequate rest and requirement of proper nutrition. In other words, the animal is treated as a tradable community with its owner or custodian being concerned only with commercial returns. Reportedly, the festivals in Kerala are now so commercialised that even before a festival there is a war or a sort of competition amongst temple committees tasked with the conduct of festivals regarding the number of elephants being paraded as well as the fame of particular elephants/elephants being paraded. We are informed that about three years ago a temple in the City of Kochi spent about Rs. 55,00,000/- (Fifty-five lakhs only) in arranging elephants for an eight-day festival. 6. There is no greater proof of the fact that captive elephants are being exploited for commercial gains mindless of their well-being than the statistics of captive elephant deaths in the State of Kerala for the years 2018-2024 which indicate that nearly 33% of the total number of recorded captive elephants (being 509 in the year 2018) have died during this short period of seven years. Thus, there has been a significant reduction in the captive elephant population in the State. This is a cause of serious concern. Thus, there has been a significant reduction in the captive elephant population in the State. This is a cause of serious concern. The numbers of captive elephants that have died in captivity between the years 2018 to 2024 are given below: Year Number of Elephants that have died in captivity 2018 34 2019 19 2020 22 2021 24 2022 19 2023 21 2024 21 We also note that at least on two occasions the death of elephants belonging to the Travancore Devaswom Board resulted in proceedings being initiated before this Court. The first case that came to our notice is the case of Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2004 SCC Online Ker 180. The other case is P. Prema Kumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2022 SCC Online Ker 4268. A reading of both these judgments indicate that even elephants in the control and custody of Devaswoms (which are statutory bodies under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950) lost their lives due to ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to them by their custodians. This cannot be permitted to continue. These judgments shall be annexed to this order as Annexure-I and II. 7. The Asian elephant is an endangered cornerstone species, included in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1972 Act’). Prior to 1986, Asian elephants were included in Part I of Schedule II of the 1972 Act. This enabled the capturing of elephants under a special license issued under the 1972 Act. However, since 1986, Asian elephants have been included in Schedule I of the 1972 Act. Under Sec. 2(16) of the Act, capturing animals amounts to ‘Hunting’. Sec. 9 prohibits hunting except as provided under Sections 11 or 12. Sec. 12 refers to a case of special permission by the Chief Wild Life Warden (CWLW) for individuals for specific purposes mentioned therein to hunt animals on payment of a special fee for the same. Under Sec.11, any wild animal included in Schedule I can be hunted only if there is a written order of permission by the CWLW, which can be issued on being satisfied that the animal has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery. On being hunted, the animal can be kept in captivity only if the CWLW for reasons recorded finds that it cannot be rehabilitated. On being hunted, the animal can be kept in captivity only if the CWLW for reasons recorded finds that it cannot be rehabilitated. Apart from these, Sec. 29 deals with the special case of hunting in a sanctuary, and Sec. 35(6) deals with hunting in a National Park. Permission under Sec. 11 is also necessary to hunt in a sanctuary or National Park but with more stringent conditions. As per Sec. 39, every wild animal, hunted otherwise than under Sec. 12, or kept or bred in captivity or hunted in contravention of any provision of the Act shall be the property of the State Government (unless the animal is hunted from a sanctuary or national park, when it shall become the property of Central Government). Thus, a wild animal which is in captivity, either legally or illegally, is Government property. A person obtaining such property shall within 48 hours report it to police or an authorized officer. Being a Schedule I animal, for an elephant to be kept in captivity, there needs to be two written orders of the CWLW, one permitting to hunt, and the other to keep in captivity. An elephant found in captivity without specific permission under Sec. 11 is held in captivity in violation of the provision. Either way, every elephant in captivity in India, is to be considered as Government property. Thus, no person can in fact own an elephant in the strict sense of the term ‘ownership’. We are informed by Sri. Hariraj M.R. the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 10th respondent that this issue has been specifically raised before the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation Centre (supra). However, the decision thereof is deferred till the final disposal of the said writ petition. 8. It can be seen that under Sec. 40 of the 1972 Act, anyone with custody, possession or control (not ownership) of a captive animal mentioned in Schedule I is to declare the same to the CWLW within thirty days from the date of commencement of the Act. An amnesty was provided by the Central Government from 18-4-2003 to 18-10-2003 for this. The certificate referred to in Sec. 42 of the Act, though referred to as “Ownership Certificate,” is only a certificate for the purpose of Sec. 40. An amnesty was provided by the Central Government from 18-4-2003 to 18-10-2003 for this. The certificate referred to in Sec. 42 of the Act, though referred to as “Ownership Certificate,” is only a certificate for the purpose of Sec. 40. The Certificate, as per Sec. 40(2A), is required for the purpose of acquiring, receiving, keeping in control or custody or possession after the commencement of the Act, which can be done only with prior permission of the CWLW. Thus, all persons having possession of an elephant ought to have declared it under Sec. 40, and obtained certification under Sec. 42. If the acquisition of the elephant was after 1986, prior permission from the CWLW also was necessary for the same. Apparently, irrespective of the certificate issued under Sec. 42, the ownership of the animal statutorily vests with the Government. This issue however remains to be decided by the Apex Court. It is now an admitted position that a good number of elephants in Kerala do not have ownership certificates. Whether the elephants which have been given ownership certificates are those hunted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, is doubtful. No such verification, regarding the existence of orders under Sec. 11(1)(a) to hunt, and under the second proviso to Sec. 11(1) to keep the animal in captivity, issued by CWLW of the respective State, appears to be done by the State Government of Kerala. The fact that there are many elephants without ownership certificates was noticed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation Centre (supra). It was also directed that the State shall conduct a verification and in the absence of a declaration and certificate under Sec. 40 and 42 appropriate actions must be taken. However, what the Government of Kerala sought to do was to issue an order giving a further amnesty. An updated list of captive elephants as on 23.08.2024 submitted by the Forest Department, shows 388 captive elephants out of which 349 are with private persons. Many of the elephants, on the list have no ownership certificate. The name of the custodian, and the name of the owner as per the ownership certificate/ microchip certificate are different. As such, the possession of the majority of the elephants appears to be illegal, which needs to be verified by the Government. 9. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, of 1960 prohibits cruelty to animals. The name of the custodian, and the name of the owner as per the ownership certificate/ microchip certificate are different. As such, the possession of the majority of the elephants appears to be illegal, which needs to be verified by the Government. 9. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, of 1960 prohibits cruelty to animals. Cruelty includes (Sec. 11) causing unnecessary pain or suffering, employing in work or labour without concern to the infirmity, wound etc. of the animal or some other cause, etc. The keeping of an animal in a cage or receptacle which is not of sufficient size restraining the animal’s reasonable movement, keeping it tethered for unreasonable time etc. is cruelty. Refusing proper food and water is cruelty. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that animals which are its property shall not be subjected to cruelty. 10. It is common knowledge that elephants are fed palm leaves alone which causes indigestion/constipation in elephants. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has already issued a circular vide, No. 1/2019 dated 22.1.2019 wherein it is observed as follows: “Increase in mortality in captive elephants in recent times is suspected to be caused by improper upkeep, poor management (without considering biological requirements) of these pachyderms, lack of timely treatment etc. Instructions on strengthening of implemental of legal provisions and also its monitoring were issued vide. Ref.(i) and (ii) circulars. An expert committee consisting of experienced Veterinarians and chaired by the APCCF (BDC) was constituted by the Chief Wildlife Warden vide., Ref.(iii) to critically analyse these deaths and to propose remedial measures. The committee, among other things, found that prolonged malnutrition, faulty feeding practices, over work and inadequate rest caused physiological and psychological stress to the animals, which predisposed these animals to many diseases leading to their death. The Committee’s findings and proposed remedial measures for ensuring welfare of these animals in captivity were critically examined and the following instructions are issued for immediate compliance by all stake holders in the management of these animals in captivity.” This circular contemplates a model feeding schedule for captive elephants in Kerala (Appendix-I to the circular). The circular is clearly violated. Therefore it must be ensured that the person seeking and obtaining permission for the parading of elephants and the owner/custodian must be made responsible to ensure that the model feeding schedule is strictly adhered to. 11. The circular is clearly violated. Therefore it must be ensured that the person seeking and obtaining permission for the parading of elephants and the owner/custodian must be made responsible to ensure that the model feeding schedule is strictly adhered to. 11. The term ‘Veterinary doctor’ is defined in Rule 2(i) of the 2012 Rules as a ‘registered Veterinary Practitioner or an experienced Ayurvedic Elephant Expert’. We have, in the course of the proceedings, in this case, come across situations where fitness certificates have been issued even to sick and infirm elephants and there are even instances where totally contradictory certificates are issued regarding the fitness of an elephant for parade. Since captive elephants are succumbing to injuries and ill-treatment in large numbers, we are of the opinion that the term ‘Veterinary Doctor’ should be confined to a Government Veterinary Doctor as is proposed in the draft Rules viz. Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2023. It is therefore necessary to direct that the fitness of elephants be examined and certified only by a Government Veterinary Doctor. 12. The learned amicus curiae has brought to our notice the fact that certain ‘competitions’ among elephants such as head lifting contests, saluting, showering of flowers etc. are being held as part of certain festivities. The learned amicus curiae informs us that there is a practice now introduced at the ‘Thirunakkara Pooram’ which is to make the elephant stand on two rear legs and salute. If such competition/show is permitted such activities will clearly fall within the purview of the Performing Animal (Registration) Rules, 2001. 13. As already noted some of the festivals are held in the cruellest of summer months. The parading elephants without adequate shelter overhead clearly amounts to cruelty. We are therefore of the opinion that arrangements have to be made to ensure that the Elephant is not pararded or made to stand at a particular place for more than 10 minutes without shade. The festival organizers have to ensure that necessary arrangements are made to provide for adequate roofing when an elephant is paraded. 14. We are therefore of the opinion that arrangements have to be made to ensure that the Elephant is not pararded or made to stand at a particular place for more than 10 minutes without shade. The festival organizers have to ensure that necessary arrangements are made to provide for adequate roofing when an elephant is paraded. 14. Thus, keeping in mind the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the order dated 18.08.2015 in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (supra) and keeping in mind the various issues that have been brought to the notice of this Court and also for the reasons indicated above, we are inclined to direct the strict implementation of the provisions contained in the 2012 Rules as also the strict implementation of the order issued by the Supreme Court on 18.08.2015. As already indicated, we are clear in our mind that the directions being issued by us are in tune with the 2012 Rules, as augmented by the directions of the Supreme Court and the directions are only intended for an effective implementation of the Statutory Rules. Taking note of the fact that the Government is in the process of framing new Rules, we have taken care not to expand on the extant Rules but merely to clarify their scope in the light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. We have not made any additions to the extant Rules in any manner. Therefore, the following directions are issued for immediate implementation: (1) In addition to the members of the District Committee constituted in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the 2012 Rules, a person nominated by the Animal Welfare Board of India from among Animal Welfare Organisations in the District shall be a member of the Committee. [The order of the Supreme Court in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (supra) records that the District Committee under the 2012 Rules includes a member nominated by the Animal Welfare Board of India though the same is not mentioned in the 2012 Rules] This direction is thus issued in conformity with what is stated in paragraph 10 of the order of the Supreme Court in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (supra). (2) The organizer of any festival where a captive elephant is proposed to be exhibited shall make an application to the District Committee at least one month prior to the date of the exhibition. This direction reiterates the direction of the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of the order of the Supreme Court in Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (supra). The application shall necessarily include: (a) The name and identification details of the elephant/elephants proposed to be exhibited and also the date/dates on which such exhibition is proposed. (b) The facilities for temporary tethering of elephants brought for exhibition. (c) The route through which processions including elephants are to be conducted and the timing for the same. (d) The venue at which the exhibition/ parading of elephants would be conducted. (e) The elephant's tour schedule covering a period 10 days prior to the proposed exhibition and 5 days after the proposed exhibition. The District Committee shall ensure that the elephant is not compelled to travel and be exhibited without sufficient rest periods between two exhibitions. Such a rest period shall not be less than three days (excluding any time taken for transportation). The District Committee may, taking into consideration the condition of any captive elephant, prescribe a longer period of rest. This is a requirement of Rule 10 (4) (xvi) of the 2012 Rules. (f) Health/fitness certificate showing that the elephant is not sick, injured, weak, disabled or otherwise unfit for exhibition. This is a requirement of Rule 10 (4) (iii) of the 2012 Rules. (g) Information relating to the elephant's normal must period and a certificate from an authorised veterinary surgeon regarding the same. This is a requirement of Rule 10 (4)(ii) of the 2012 Rules. (h) Declaration/Information regarding any instances of the elephant running amok during the past 12 months from the date of application. (g) Information relating to the elephant's normal must period and a certificate from an authorised veterinary surgeon regarding the same. This is a requirement of Rule 10 (4)(ii) of the 2012 Rules. (h) Declaration/Information regarding any instances of the elephant running amok during the past 12 months from the date of application. This is a requirement of Rule 10 (4)(iii) of the 2012 Rules) (3) The District Committee shall consider such application and grant permission for exhibition only subject to the following conditions: (a) The exhibitor shall satisfy the committee that it has made the arrangements to provide food and water in accordance with the stipulations set out by the government in Circular 1/2019 dated 22.01.2019 of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Kerala, or any revised stipulation in this regard which the Government may from time to time promulgate, to all elephants brought for exhibitions during the time they are in the premises of the exhibitor. Circular 1/2019 dated 22.01.2019 of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Kerala shall be Annexed to this order as Annexure-III. This direction is in conformity with Rules 6 and 10(4)(vii) of the 2012 Rules and Annexure-III circular of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Kerala. (b) The exhibitor shall satisfy the committee that it has a temporary tethering facility complying with the following: Note: these requirements are mandated by Rules 3, 10(4)(vii) and 10 (4)(ix) of the 2012 Rules (i) The temporary tethering site shall be clean and shall provide a healthy environment with sufficient shade for the elephants during the rest period. If roofing is provided using metal or other unbreakable material, gunny bags, grass, cadjan/palm leaves, etc., must be used to cover it to keep the shelter cool. (ii) Each elephant shall be provided with a shelter shed having a minimum floor area of 9m x 6m and the height shall not be less than 5.5 m. The tethering site must have sufficient space for the elephant to move about while tethered and the tethers shall not be used in a manner that they fully fetter the movement of the elephant while at the temporary tethering site. (iii) The shelter's floor must be made of natural materials to keep it dry and clean, and appropriate drainage must be provided. (iii) The shelter's floor must be made of natural materials to keep it dry and clean, and appropriate drainage must be provided. (iv) Necessary arrangements shall be in place for prompt removal of filth and refuse from the shelter and under no circumstances shall the elephants be made to stand in their own refuse. (v) The tethering site must have a continuous supply of potable water, which shall be accessible to the elephant without the intervention of any person. (c) The District Committee shall consider the availability of space inside temples or other places where the exhibition or parading is proposed and will ensure that no permission is granted unless the venue where the exhibitions or parading of elephants is proposed has sufficient space to parade the elephants with (i) a minimum distance of 3 meters between two elephants,(ii) a minimum distance of 5 meters from the elephant to flambeau or any other source of fire, (iii) a minimum distance of 8 meters from the elephant to the public and any percussion display, (iv) Necessary barricades are placed between the public and elephants (v) minimum distance of 100 meters is maintained from any place where fireworks are used and the place where the elephants are exhibited (vi) proper shade shall be provided to ensure that the paraded elephants are not exposed to the hot sun for elephants and a facility for feeding the elephants and providing drinking water to the elephants (vii) have a proper evacuation plan separately for elephants and for the public to be used in case of any emergency approved by the fire department. In other words, the number of Elephants that can be paraded will depend on the availability of space enabling the maintenance of the minimum distance fixed above inside the temple or any other place where the parade is proposed. These requirements are mandated by Rules 10(4)(i), 10(4)(vi), 10(4)(vii), 10(4)(viii) & 10(4)(ix) of the 2012 Rules. (d) The route for taking out the procession of elephants through public roads shall satisfy the following: Note: these requirements are mandated by Rules 10(4)(i), (v) & (viii) of the 2012 Rules: (i) Have sufficient space to parade the elephants with a minimum distance of 3 meters between two elephants and a minimum distance of 5 meters from the elephant to flambeau or any other source of fire. (ii) No procession of elephants through public roads shall be permitted between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. (4) The District Committee shall also ensure the following while giving permission to exhibit an elephant: (a) An elephant shall not be transported between 10:00 PM and 4:00 AM. During this time it shall be ensured that the elephant is kept at a proper tethering site, either temporary or permanent provided by the owner or an exhibitor. (See Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules) (b) An elephant shall not be exhibited for a continuous period of more than 3 hours. (See Rule 10(xvi) of the 2012 Rules) (c) No elephant shall be made to walk for more than 30 KM a day for the purpose of transportation. All transportation above 30 KM shall be made by vehicle approved for the purpose. The transportation of the elephant shall not be made for more than 125 KM in a day by any means. No elephant shall be transported for more than 6 hours in a vehicle in a day and the speed of the vehicle shall not exceed 25 KM per hour while transporting an elephant. The officials of the Motor Vehicles Department shall ensure that Speed Governors are fixed on all vehicles engaged in the transport of elephants and that the maximum speed setting is set at the limit fixed above. (See Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules) (d) An elephant shall be ensured at least 8 hours of rest during a continuous period of 24 hours. (See Rule 10(xvi) of the 2012 Rules) (5) Since several instances of fitness certificates being issued by Veterinary Doctors without even inspection of the animal have been brought to our notice, it is directed that the District Commitee shall accept fitness certificates issued by Government Doctors only until further orders. The competent authority in the Veterinary Department, Government of Kerala will issue the necessary orders forthwith fixing the modalities for examination and issuance of fitness certificates, the period of its validity, and the fee to be remitted for issuance of fitness certificates. The Government Veterinary Doctors shall mandatorily record any injury that they notice on the elephant that they are called upon to examine and they will ensure that fitness certificates are not issued to any elephant that they feel is weak or infirm in any manner whatsoever. The Government Veterinary Doctors shall mandatorily record any injury that they notice on the elephant that they are called upon to examine and they will ensure that fitness certificates are not issued to any elephant that they feel is weak or infirm in any manner whatsoever. (6) No contest of the nature noticed in paragraph 12 above shall be permitted under any circumstances. This is on account of the provisions contained in the Performing Animal (Registration) Rules, 2001. (7) The owner/custodian shall maintain all registers in accordance with the provisions of the 2012 Rules, and the District Committee shall verify this before permission is granted to parade any elephant. (See Rule 8 of the 2012 Rules) 15. In addition to the above, we direct that no organiser or Devaswom shall permit the deployment of any squads which go by the name ‘Elephant Squads’ in any festival or exhibition where elephants are being paraded. We also prohibit the use of any ‘capture belt’ or such other crude and inhuman method of capturing elephants that may run amok or otherwise misbehave. (See Rule 10(4)(iv) of the 2012 Rules). This shall be included as a condition upon which permission to parade is being granted. 16. We direct the Principal Secretary, Forests and Wildlife Department, Government of Kerala to place on record an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which G.O. (Ms.) No. 19/2022/F&WLD dated 20.4.2022 or any later G.O. on similar lines has been issued, in the face of the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India. The affidavit shall also indicate whether the orders issued by the Supreme Court referred to above have by now been complied with and if not the reason for non-compliance. The competent authority of the Government of Kerala shall ensure strict implementation of the aforesaid directions and guidelines, if necessary by issuing necessary orders and communicating the directions/guidelines framed by this Court to all stakeholders. In order to ensure effective implementation of these orders/ directions the following are suo motu impleaded as additional respondents 29 to 32 to the Writ Petition: 1 The Travancore Devaswom Board, Nanthancode, Kawdiar Post, Thiruvananthapuram 695003 represented by its Secretary 2 The Cochin Devaswom Board, Round North, Thrissur, Kerala represented by its Secretary 3 The Malabar Devaswom Board, Housefed Complex, Eranhipallam P.O, Eranhipallam, Kozhikode. represented by its Secretary 4 The Guruvayoor Devaswom Board, Guruvayoor, Thrissur-680101 represented by its Administrator 17. represented by its Secretary 4 The Guruvayoor Devaswom Board, Guruvayoor, Thrissur-680101 represented by its Administrator 17. Registry shall serve a copy of this order on the respective standing counsel appearing for Additional Respondents 29 to 32 forthwith.