Reader TTS

The amicus curiae also recommended that the forest department should conduct regular inspection of captive elephants’ records, at least once every two weeks during the festival season. T C

Suresh Menon, the amicus curiae, and Advocate Sandhesh Raja K were present on-site as per the High Court’s order. They observed that the inspection of elephants on the Paramekkavu temple

premises began around 4 pm. The list of elephants to be paraded by the devaswoms changed three times, with 40 elephants inspected from Paramekkavu Devaswom and 44 from Thiruvambady Devaswom.

During the inspection, they found that Pambady Sundaran had a serious wound on its right rear side with blood oozing out and an opaque left eye, yet it was cleared for the parade. Tusker

Vyloor Parameswaran had a mal-united left forearm, causing difficulty in walking, but it was also cleared. Tusker Ezhuthurakka Gangaprasad had wounds on his hind legs, yet it was also

cleared for the parade. The report stated that more than 28 elephants were tethered in a confined space with little room for movement. While inspecting three elephants in the eastern corner

of the ground, mahouts of other elephants withdrew from the area. The absence of the animal husbandry department doctor and the forest department’s advice that it was unsafe to stay there

prompted the officials to escort the amicus curiae team out of the area. PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM REFUSED TO COOPERATE, SAYS AMICUS CURIAE The amicus curiae has criticised the Paramekkavu

Devaswom in a report amid the ongoing controversy surrounding the management of Thrissur Pooram. The report stated that Rajesh, the secretary of Paramekkavu Devaswom, harshly criticised the

High Court during a meeting, accusing it of interfering in the conduct of Thrissur Pooram and the inspection and parading of elephants. Rajesh said that the devaswom would not assist

authorities in implementing distance rules for parading elephants, taking a stance contrary to the position submitted by Paramekkavu Devaswom’s counsel. According to amicus curiae, Rajesh’s

behavior and statements during the meeting were described as threatening, as he declared that the High Court could pass any orders it wanted, but he would not comply with them.