Guwahati: The transfer of five captive elephants from Assam to temples and religious institutions in Tamil Nadu has taken a more troubling turn, with questions emerging over their ownership, genetic origins and the credibility of the documentation used to facilitate their movement.
What initially appeared to be a case of five elephants being donated to religious institutions has increasingly drawn scrutiny over whether the animals were genuinely gifted, purchased or transferred through a chain of ownership that remains inadequately explained.
The five elephants — Durga, Hiralal, Shiva, Rupsing and Bijuli — travelled nearly 3,000 kilometres from Assam to Tamil Nadu in September 2026. Their transfers were facilitated through Seva Trust, run by Anuradha Subramanian, wife of Vaidyanathan Krishnamoorthy, popularly known as Judicial Krishnamoorthy.
While the Assam Forest Department processed the necessary clearances, questions about the transactions, the original owners and the circumstances in which the elephants entered private custody remain unanswered.
Also read: Five Assam elephants reach Tamil Nadu temples amid purchase, ownership questions
A closer examination of official DNA analysis reports obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, along with field investigations by Northeast Now, has brought several inconsistencies into focus.
The emerging questions go beyond the legality of individual transport permits. They concern whether the existing system of captive elephant ownership and transfer verification is sufficiently robust to prevent illegally sourced elephants from entering apparently legitimate ownership arrangements.
A donor who could not be traced
One of the most striking questions concerns Bijuli, the five-year-old female elephant transferred to the Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Gajashala in Kancheepuram. According to Assam Forest Department records, Bijuli was owned by Hiteswar Moran of Pengaree in Tinsukia district. Her microchip number is 0008176103.
However, when Northeast Now sent a reporter to Torani, the village identified in connection with Hiteswar Moran, local residents said they did not know anyone by that name. The discrepancy raises a fundamental question: who was the actual owner of Bijuli, and how was her ownership established before the elephant was transferred to Tamil Nadu?
DNA reports reveal genetic relationships, not necessarily motherhood
Documents obtained through an RTI application filed by Rohit Choudhury, a conservation activist from Assam, and accessed by Northeast Now reveal that the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) has conducted DNA profiling of captive elephants from different forest divisions of Assam and recorded their genetic profiles in its countrywide captive elephant genetic database.
The RTI reply issued by the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Assam, on October 30, 2026, contains DNA analysis reports from the WII.
These reports provide another important dimension to the questions surrounding the five elephants. The WII conducted individual-level genetic profiling of several captive elephants and recorded their genetic information in its countrywide captive elephant genetic database. However, the reports frequently describe the elephants as “related” without specifying whether they are biological mother and calf.
The August 24, 2026, report concerning Jaya and Bijuli identifies Jaya as the mother and Bijuli as her female calf in the sample table. However, the remarks column records only that the two elephants are “related”. Similarly, an October 9, 2025, report records that Dhanmala and Hiralal are related, while Lakhimai and Shivam are also identified as related. An October 15, 2025, report identifies Chandramani and Shiva as related. Another report dated October 29, 2025, records a genetic relationship between Dhanmala and Hiralal.
The September 5, 2026, report concerning Rupsing confirms that his individual genetic profile was generated and entered into the WII database. It does not, however, establish any maternal relationship.
The distinction is crucial because genetic relatedness does not automatically establish a mother-calf relationship. Raising concerns over the absence of conclusive parentage evidence, Arun Prasanna G, an animal rights activist and founder of People for Cattle in India (PFCI), questioned the reliability of the genetic documentation.
“Third, parentage is not established. For Durga, Shiva and Hiralal, the WII says only that each is ‘related’ to another elephant, which could mean a sibling, aunt or grandmother. The WII does not specify which test it used, how many markers it examined or provide any probability figures. Rupsing’s letter names no relative at all, and the only document held for him is a 2019 inspection report, not an ownership certificate,” Prasanna said.
Why a DNA match alone is not enough
DNA tests used to establish mother-calf relationships in elephants involve two forms of genetic analysis: mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing and nuclear DNA analysis. For this purpose, blood samples are collected from the calf and the elephant identified as its potential mother. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively through the maternal line. A calf and its biological mother must therefore have matching mtDNA. A mismatch rules out a mother-calf relationship.
However, a matching mtDNA profile alone is insufficient to establish motherhood because maternal aunts and their offspring can also share mitochondrial DNA inherited from a common maternal grandmother. Scientists consequently undertake nuclear DNA analysis, which examines genetic material inherited equally from both parents.
Approximately 18 genetic markers, known as microsatellites, are compared between the calf and the candidate mother. Under the testing criteria described for this process, the markers should demonstrate a 95 to 99 per cent match to establish a mother-calf relationship.
A match below 95 per cent indicates that the elephants may be genetically related but does not establish that one is the biological mother of the other.
The RTI documents do not disclose the individual microsatellite matching percentages or detailed marker-by-marker results for the elephants listed in the reports. Consequently, the WII’s remarks describing particular elephants as “related” cannot, by themselves, be treated as conclusive proof of motherhood.
This raises an important question in the context of the five transfers: were the genetic relationships of the elephants examined to establish their maternal origins, or was individual genetic profiling primarily used to establish their identities?
Ownership certificates and missing chain of provenance
The questions surrounding Bijuli are not isolated. Northeast Now‘s earlier investigation into the five transfers found discrepancies in the recorded ages of some elephants and raised questions about the ownership documentation.
Hiralal was listed as owned by Samsul Hoque of Bazaricherra in Sribhumi district, while Shiva was listed under Mukheshar Moran of Tongona in Tinsukia district. Rupsing was listed as owned by Piyal Moran of Bordubi in Tinsukia district. His age records contained a significant discrepancy: Form IV recorded him as 13 years, two months and seven days as of September 10, 2026, whereas an earlier Form III recorded him as 15 years, one month and 25 days as of August 28, 2026.
Tamil Nadu media reports also described Rupsing as having been purchased from Assam, with his name subsequently changed to Muthaiah. This stands in contrast to the official description of the five elephants as donations.
Also read: Assam Forest dept under fire over secret elephant transfer from Manas
The ownership certificates for at least three elephants — Durga, Hiralal and Shiva — were issued between October and November 2025. The ownership certificates of Bijuli and Rupsing were not available in the public domain at the time of investigation. The certificates of Durga, Hiralal and Shiva carried provisional status, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in an ongoing case.
These details raise questions about the extent of verification undertaken before the elephants were allowed to leave Assam.
Conflicting official records deepen concerns
Apart from the questions surrounding genetic parentage and ownership certificates, discrepancies between official records have also emerged.
Prasanna alleged that the records maintained by different government authorities do not correspond with one another, raising further questions about the verification process.
“Fourth, the official records do not agree with each other. Every WII letter was copied to Project Elephant at the Environment Ministry, yet the ministry told us it holds no such records. The WII also said parentage records were unavailable, although its own August 24, 2026, letter names Jaya as Bijuli’s mother,” he said.
The discrepancy raises questions about the coordination between the WII and the Environment Ministry, particularly when genetic information is being used in matters involving captive elephant ownership and interstate transfers.
How elephant trafficking could exploit documentation gaps
The concerns assume greater significance in light of India’s restrictions on the commercial trade in elephants. Under Section 43 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, an animal covered by a certificate of ownership cannot be sold, offered for sale or transferred for commercial consideration. Transfers through inheritance, gifts or donations are subject to the applicable legal requirements. This creates a critical distinction between a genuine donation and a transaction in which money or other consideration changes hands.
An investigation by The News Minute into the role of Seva Trust has raised questions about how the organisation obtained the five elephants and the sequence of communications with the Assam government and Tamil Nadu authorities.
The report stated that Anuradha Subramanian had approached Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma seeking elephants for temples. The government subsequently agreed in principle to consider the proposal, subject to the necessary clearances.
The investigation also raised questions about the creation of ownership documents, microchip records and the absence of publicly available ownership certificates for two of the five elephants.
Taken together, these developments raise concerns that gaps in ownership verification and documentation could potentially be exploited to facilitate the movement of illegally sourced elephants under the appearance of lawful donations. The available documents do not, by themselves, establish that any of the five elephants were illegally captured or trafficked. Nor do they prove that money changed hands in every transfer.
However, the contradictions warrant an independent investigation into the elephants’ complete ownership and acquisition histories.
A larger question for India’s elephant protection system
The controversy is no longer limited to whether five elephants were legally transported from one state to another.
It raises a more fundamental question about how an elephant enters private custody, how its captive-born status is established, how its biological origins are verified and how ownership certificates are issued.
If an individual named as an elephant’s owner cannot be traced to the locality recorded in official documents, if age records differ, and if genetic reports establish only relatedness without disclosing conclusive maternity results, the verification process deserves closer scrutiny.
The Wildlife Institute of India has a countrywide genetic database intended to help identify captive elephants and maintain their individual genetic profiles. But the usefulness of such a system depends on how rigorously its findings are applied when ownership and transfer claims are examined.
The Assam Forest Department must clarify whether it independently verified the identities of the five donors, examined the complete chain of ownership, established the elephants’ captive-born status and scrutinised the genetic evidence before granting interstate transfer permissions.
It must also explain whether the transfers were genuinely donations and, if so, make the relevant donation documents available for public scrutiny.
Calling for greater transparency, Prasanna said the authorities should disclose the underlying records and explain how the genetic relationships and ownership claims were verified.
“We are asking the authorities for the records that would settle this: how the relationships were determined, what the mothers’ origin papers show, and whether any verification was done after the elephants reached Tamil Nadu. Until those records are produced, these transfers cannot be called lawful,” Prasanna said.
The five elephants have already reached their destinations in Tamil Nadu. But the questions surrounding their origins have not travelled with them into the public record.
For conservationists and wildlife investigators, the concern is that India’s safeguards against illegal elephant trade could become vulnerable if questionable ownership claims, incomplete genetic verification and transfer documentation are accepted without sufficiently independent scrutiny.
The issue, therefore, is whether the movement of these five elephants represents a fully verified transfer of captive animals — or whether the existing regulatory framework leaves room for illegal elephant trade to operate behind the paperwork of ownership and donation.