Guwahati: The transfer of five young captive elephants from Assam to Tamil Nadu temples has triggered mounting questions over their ownership, provenance and the circumstances under which they were moved, including claims that some of the elephants described as “donated” may have actually been purchased by Tamil Nadu religious institutions.
Four more elephants—Hiralal, Shiva, Rupsing and Bijuli—have now followed five-year-old Durga, who reached the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple in Madurai on September 14 after travelling nearly 3,000 kilometres from Assam.
Hiralal and Shiva reached the Arunachaleswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai, while Rupsing was taken to the Sri Vaidyanatha Swamy Temple at Vaitheeswaran Koil in Nagapattinam district on Thursday (September 25). Bijuli reached the Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Gajashala in Kancheepuram.
The movement has raised a fundamental question: were the five elephants genuinely donated to Tamil Nadu temples, or were they purchased or otherwise acquired for religious institutions under the description of donation?
The question is particularly significant because Tamil Nadu reports have described Rupsing as an elephant purchased from Assam, while other public accounts have described the transfers as donations.
The Assam Forest Department, which processed the required clearances, now faces questions over whether it independently verified the ownership history, acquisition records, provenance and financial circumstances surrounding each elephant before permitting their interstate transfer.
Four more elephants reach Tamil Nadu
Eight-year-old Hiralal reached the Arunachaleswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai around 9.30 pm on Thursday. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) officials received the elephant.
Shiva, another male elephant from Assam, also reached the Arunachaleswarar Temple in Tiruvannamalai.
According to Assam Forest Department records, Hiralal is owned by Samsul Hoque of Bazaricherra in Assam’s Sribhumi district. His microchip number is recorded as 00081790EC.
Shiva is listed as being owned by Mukheshar Moran of Tongona in Tinsukia district. According to Form IV, he was six years, six months and 20 days old as of September 10, while Form III records his age as six years, six months and 22 days. His microchip number is 000817E45A.
Rupsing, another male elephant from Assam, reached the Sri Vaidyanatha Swamy Temple at Vaitheeswaran Koil in Nagapattinam district.
Rupsing is listed as being owned by Piyal Moran of Bordubi in Tinsukia district. His age records contain a significant discrepancy. Form IV records him as 13 years, two months and seven days as of September 10, 2026, while an earlier Form III gives his age as 15 years, one month and 25 days as of August 28, 2026.
Tamil Nadu reports have said that Rupsing was purchased from Assam and that his name has subsequently been changed to Muthaiah, with the elephant being dedicated to the temple for religious ceremonies and other duties.
Another elephant, Bijuli, reached the Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Gajashala in Kancheepuram. According to Assam Forest Department records, Bijuli is a female elephant owned by Hiteswar Moran of Pengaree in Tinsukia district. Her microchip number is 0008176103. Form IV records her age as five years, eight months and three days as of September 9, 2026.
Earlier, five-year-old female elephant Durga reached the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple in Madurai on September 14 after travelling nearly 3,000 kilometres from Assam.
Krishnamurthy Vaidyanathan under spotlight
Sources familiar with the developments said Krishnamurthy Vaidyanathan, popularly known as Judicial Krishnamurthy, and his wife Anuradha Krishnamurthy played a key role in facilitating the movement of the five elephants from Assam to Tamil Nadu religious institutions.
The couple, according to sources, visited Assam in August and met Assam Chief Wildlife Warden Vinay Gupta and other officials and political figures before the process for moving the five elephants to Tamil Nadu was initiated.
Sources further claimed that the couple has links with several temple trusts and boards, including the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and the Purva Tirupati Balaji Mandir Trust at Betkuchi in Guwahati.
These claims require independent verification, and the exact role played by the couple in the transfer process has not been publicly established in official records examined so far.
However, their reported involvement raises another question: who initiated the process of identifying and transferring these five elephants from Assam to Tamil Nadu temples, and how were the individual elephants selected?
Donation or purchase?
The central controversy is increasingly about the actual nature of the transactions. Public statements and reporting have described the elephants as being “donated” to Tamil Nadu temples. But reports from Tamil Nadu have described Rupsing as having been purchased from Assam.
ABP Live Tamil, for instance, reported that the Dharmapuram Adheenam had completed legal procedures to select and procure a healthy male elephant from Assam following the Madras High Court’s directions and the required medical examinations and forest clearances.
That distinction is critical. Under the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, temples can receive donated elephants subject to prescribed permissions and safeguards.
But if money or other consideration actually changed hands, the transaction would raise a different set of questions concerning ownership, acquisition and compliance.
Reacting to the controversy, Arun Prasanna G., founder of People For Cattle in India (PFCI), said:
“This is not merely a question about five elephants being moved from Assam to Tamil Nadu. It is a question about how five young elephants entered private custody, how they came to be transferred to temples, whether the entire process was genuinely in the best interests of the elephants, and whether every stage of the process has been subjected to the level of scrutiny that elephants of this protected status deserve.”
Arun said authorities should establish the complete chain of ownership for each elephant. “We also need clarity on the very basic question: were these elephants donated or purchased? Public reporting and statements surrounding the case have used the word ‘donation’, while other reports have referred to the elephants as having been purchased for Tamil Nadu temples. That is a fundamental distinction,” he said.
“If it was genuinely a donation, the complete donation documentation should be placed in the public domain. If money changed hands or any consideration was involved, that raises an entirely different set of legal and regulatory questions,” Arun said.
He added, “An elephant cannot become a temple asset simply because paperwork describes a transaction as a donation. The underlying transaction and money trail, if any, must be capable of independent verification.”
Assam Forest Department faces questions
The developments have put the Assam Forest Department under increasing scrutiny. The department processed the statutory clearances required for the transfers, while the Assam government told the Gauhati High Court that the necessary permissions had been obtained.
The Gauhati High Court subsequently declined to impose an immediate restraint on the transfer, while directing the Assam government to respond to concerns surrounding the elephants and their welfare.
The court proceedings, however, do not settle the underlying factual questions over ownership, provenance or whether the elephants were donated or purchased.
The Assam Forest Department must therefore explain what scrutiny was undertaken before the clearances were issued. Who first proposed the transfer? Who identified the five elephants? Who identified the Tamil Nadu temples and religious institutions? Who approached whom?
What ownership documents were examined? Were the elephants genuinely donated? If so, where are the donation deeds?
If money changed hands, what was the amount and who paid whom? Were the original owners unable to maintain the elephants? Was their provenance independently verified? Were DNA, microchip and veterinary records cross-checked?
And why were young elephants selected for transfer over a distance of nearly 3,000 kilometres?
‘Why did these elephants need to be moved?’
PFCI founder Arun said the fundamental issue is not merely whether a transport permit was issued.
“The applicable framework permits transfer in specified circumstances, including where an owner is unable to maintain an elephant or where the transfer would provide better upkeep. Therefore, the fundamental question is not simply whether a transport permit was issued.”
“The question is: Was it actually demonstrated, elephant by elephant, that moving them thousands of kilometres away from Assam to a temple in Tamil Nadu would provide better upkeep and a better life?”
The question becomes particularly significant in the case of Durga. Publicly available information indicates that Durga was under veterinary care and upkeep at Manas National Park before her transfer.
Arun said the circumstances needed to be examined.
“If an elephant is said to be in private ownership but is being kept under the care of a government protected-area establishment, we need complete transparency about the circumstances. Why was she there? Who was actually responsible for her care? How did she come into the stated owner’s possession? Where was she being maintained before being taken to Manas? And what records establish her complete provenance?”
Where are the mothers of the young elephants?
Another question concerns the age of the elephants. Durga and Bijuli are only around five years old. Arun asked why the circumstances of their separation from their mothers and herds had not been adequately explained.
“Where is Durga’s mother? If a five-year-old elephant was taken from an environment in Assam and transferred thousands of kilometres away, the circumstances of her separation from her mother and herd require examination. The same principle should apply to every young elephant involved in this process,” he said.
The question is not merely emotional. The social structure of elephants and the circumstances in which young elephants enter captivity are important elements of their provenance and welfare history.
A 3,000-km journey under scrutiny
Durga travelled nearly 3,000 kilometres from Assam to Madurai. Arun said the journey itself must be examined in detail, including loading, confinement, hydration, feeding, rest periods, veterinary monitoring, temperature, handling and recovery.
“We have serious questions about whether the journey was proportionate and necessary. The fact that an elephant reaches the destination alive does not by itself establish that the journey was welfare-compliant,” he said.
The same scrutiny should now apply to Hiralal, Shiva, Rupsing and Bijuli.
What happens inside the temples?
The controversy does not end with the elephants reaching Tamil Nadu. Questions remain over their long-term housing, chaining, exercise, social contact, bathing, enrichment, veterinary care and participation in temple activities.
Arun said: “The real issue is not whether a temple can provide a shed and water. The issue is whether this particular elephant will have a life appropriate to her welfare needs.”
Independent verification of ownership
Arun further said, “Before any further elephant is moved, there should be an independent verification of ownership, provenance, maternity where relevant, microchip records, veterinary history, acquisition history, financial records connected with the transfer, transport records and the proposed destination’s actual capacity to provide lifelong welfare.”
He also called for independent animal-welfare organisations and concerned citizens to be allowed to examine the records.
“Durga should not become the precedent for moving more young elephants thousands of kilometres from Assam to Tamil Nadu.
“The immediate issue is therefore not simply whether the five elephants have reached their destinations. It is whether the process that took them there was completely transparent. If they were genuinely donated, the donation documents should be made public. If they were purchased, the purchase agreements, consideration and chain of ownership should be disclosed,” he added.
Arun said if the transfers were approved because the original owners could no longer maintain the elephants, the authorities should explain why alternatives within Assam were not considered.