When elephants cannot be plaintiffs, but Lord Rama can

The Colorado Supreme Court has settled a legal debate that sounds straight out of a satirical courtroom drama. A group of African elephants housed at Denver’s Municipal Zoo were at the centre of a lawsuit filed by an animal rights organization.

The group sought to have the elephants declared ‘persons’ and moved to a sanctuary on the grounds of unlawful detention. A noble intention, no doubt, but the court firmly ruled that elephants, majestic and family-oriented as they are, lack the legal standing to file a habeas corpus claim. In simpler terms, the elephants were told: ‘You are magnificent, but not human.’

Chief Justice Brian Boatright’s ruling boiled the matter down to the central question: Is an elephant a ‘person’? The majority’s resounding ‘no’ was accompanied by a poignant note from Justice Melissa Hart, who clarified that this decision does not diminish the reverence for these gentle giants. But when it comes to human rights, they remain, well, not human.

The Legal Wisdom of Ayodhya

Now, let us journey eastward, where the legal system has been more inclusive, at least when it comes to non-humans being represented in court. In India’s landmark Ayodhya verdict, Lord Sri Rama was not just a litigant but a plaintiff. Yes, you read that correctly. The deity himself, through His earthly representatives, argued for His rightful place on the disputed land. And He won. The Ram Janma Bhoomi case is a shining example of how divinity can find legal standing in a courtroom.

One can imagine the bewilderment of a Colorado judge trying to process this idea. Lord Rama as a plaintiff? Surely, elephants in Denver might have fared better if they had presented themselves as divine beings rather than mere mortals with tusks and trunks.

Monkeys, rivers, and more plaintiffs

India’s legal landscape is filled with curious examples of non-humans and even non-living entities finding their place in the hallowed halls of justice. The Ganga and Yamuna rivers were granted the status of ‘living entities’ by the Uttarakhand High Court in 2017, making them legally capable of defending themselves against pollution. In Madhya Pradesh, monkeys regularly engage with humans in ways that might warrant a separate category in the justice system, though they have not yet filed lawsuits – perhaps only because they lack a decent lawyer.

Meanwhile, Lord Hanuman has occasionally been invoked in temple disputes, with devotees filing cases in his name. Imagine the poor Colorado elephants hearing of such cases over their morning hay: ‘If a river and a monkey god can, why not us?’

The irony of modern justice

The Colorado ruling shines a light on the idiosyncrasies of justice. On one side of the globe, courts deliberate whether elephants are persons; on the other, gods, rivers, and even temple idols are busy fighting their legal battles. Perhaps the Elephants’ legal team erred in their approach. Instead of invoking habeas corpus, they might have tried for personhood through a more spiritual argument. After all, the world seems kinder to those who transcend the limitations of mere mammalhood.

But jokes aside, the real takeaway from this tale is not about the absurdity of the courtrooms but about the compassion we owe to those who cannot speak for themselves. Whether in sanctuaries or temples, let us not forget that dignity and respect are due to all, regardless of their species or celestial status.

And until the day elephants can sue, they must rely on us to do the heavy lifting – both in zoos and beyond.