Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury denied the interim relief sought by petitioner Rohit Choudhury. The Division Bench found no immediate grounds to block the movement, stating that the applicant failed to demonstrate that mandatory regulatory clearances were missing.
The court’s order is blunt. "Prima facie, we find no reason... to pass any restraint order," the bench stated. They noted that the only concern raised was a past incident involving an elephant named 'Joymala,' who overstayed in Tamil Nadu. However, the judges pointed out that Assam has already filed a separate writ petition to bring 'Joymala' back, rendering the current apprehension of ill-treatment less compelling.
Additional Advocate General P N Goswami, representing the State of Assam, assured the court that all statutory clearances for the five elephants were in place. He emphasized that the animals are moving for religious purposes and that the state would ensure their safe transportation.
Choudhury’s original writ petition challenges the validity of specific provisions in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. He argues that Sections 40(2A) and 40(2B) create an arbitrary regime for captive elephants, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The matter is also pending before a High Powered Committee, where the State has already filed a response affidavit.
The court kept the interlocutory application pending with a direction for the Assam government to respond by the next date. The main writ petition, originally scheduled for September 24, will now be heard on October 15.