In a first, Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal has accepted an elephant as a petitioner in a case concerning the threat posed to elephants by railway operations.

In its September 10, 2026 judgment in Center for Eco-Cultural Studies and Another v. Hon. Attorney General and Others, CA (Writ) App. No. 318/2025, the court held that the second petitioner, an elephant identified as Elephant X (Elephas maximus maximus), has the locus standi to be a petitioner.

Justice D.F.H. Gunawardhana allowed the Centre for Eco-Cultural Studies, the first petitioner, to represent the elephant as its “next best friend”, noting that the animal could not physically approach the court and make an application.

The case arose from a night-time collision between the Batticaloa–Colombo “Meenagaya” express train and a herd of elephants. According to the petitioners, six elephants were killed at the scene. Two others were seriously injured, including the elephant named as the second petitioner. The other injured elephant later died, taking the total number of deaths to seven.

The court accepted that the elephant had a “personal interest in the litigation” and said the animal’s grievance represented the wider threat faced by elephants, including the threat of extinction.

Question of animal standing

The judgment examined the question of whether an elephant can seek rights before a court.

The court noted that under the existing legal position in Sri Lanka, animals are considered property and that ownership of an elephant can be acquired or transferred once a wild elephant has been domesticated.

However, it identified the broader legal question of whether an elephant can seek recognition of rights from a court when those rights are not otherwise expressly recognised by law.

The court noted that some jurisdictions have recognised rights for animals, including the right to life, despite their inability to appear before a court or communicate a complaint in human language.

It referred in a footnote to decisions from Ecuador, India, Argentina and Pakistan, including the Mona Estrellita case and proceedings concerning Sandra the orangutan.

The judgment does not expressly declare elephants to be legal persons. Instead, it proceeds on the basis that the elephant can be represented by the first petitioner as a “next friend”.

The court nevertheless went beyond treating the animal merely as an object of protection, stating that the elephant itself had a grievance before the court and that there was a judicial duty to protect it.

Measures to prevent elephant deaths

The court also issued directions to various government departments, including the Railways, aimed at reducing elephant deaths.

Among the measures were training for train drivers and disciplinary action against those who violate prescribed norms.

The judgment comes in the context of the continuing threat faced by elephants from railway operations, while the court’s approach to standing places the animal itself at the centre of the proceedings.

The petitioners had argued that elephants and other animals cannot approach courts to make complaints even though courts are institutions through which legal rights are asserted and protected.

The Court of Appeal’s decision therefore addresses not only the immediate circumstances of the train collision but also the question of whether an animal can have a legally recognised interest capable of being represented before a court.