Madras High Court Uses Child Custody Approach to Resolve Dispute Over Legal Ownership of Elephant
Litigation - Article Series from All-Creatures.org Articles Archive

FROM Nicole Pallotta, Senior Policy Program Manager, ALDF Animal Legal Defense Fund
April 2021

This important ruling illustrates an emerging jurisprudence related to animal custody, which recognizes the interests of the animal in addition to the claims of the human parties in such disputes... 'Determining bonds non-anthropocentrically.'

Summary: In October 2020, the Madras High Court in India resolved an “ownership” dispute involving an elephant named Lalitha using the “best interests” standard used in child custody cases. In assessing her interests, the Court paid special attention to Lalitha’s mental well-being, noting her bond with her caregiver and the psychological trauma that she would experience if she were forcibly relocated. This important ruling illustrates an emerging jurisprudence related to animal custody, which recognizes the interests of the animal in addition to the claims of the human parties in such disputes.

Just solutions to legal issues may sometimes lie outside the formal statutory framework. Judges should therefore boldly think outside the box and not feel inhibited or timid. I say so because in the case on hand that pertains to “Lalitha” a female elephant, I found light not in the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 but in the pages of Peter Wohlleben’s “‘The Inner Life of Animals.” – Justice G.R. Swaminathan, Madras High Court

In October 2020, the Madras High Court in India1 resolved a dispute over the legal ownership2 of an elephant named Lalitha using the “best interests” standard commonly used in child custody cases. Taking Lalitha’s physical and psychological well-being into account led Justice G.R. Swaminathan to rule contrary to the applicable administrative law, finding in a 12-page decision: “Just solutions to legal issues may sometimes lie outside the formal statutory framework” (p.2).

This case is notable because, while disputes of this nature are often referred to as custody cases, animals are classified as “property” under the law. Therefore, the central legal issue is generally framed in terms of ownership. With some exceptions, this is how courts have traditionally approached the issue.

However, courts and legislatures have increasingly begun to consider the interests of the animal in such disputes, as opposed to resolving them according to a strict property analysis. Lalitha’s case exemplifies this jurisprudential shift....

 

Please read the ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE (PDF)

Return to: Litigation