A petition to ban elephant cruelty in Bangladesh has sparked much legal and ethical debates. In this write-up, the writer addresses and maps the relevant legal discussions relating to cruelty to elephants, and other animals in general.

Broadly, the Animal Welfare Act 2019 and the Wildlife (Conservation and Security) Act 2012 govern animal welfare in Bangladesh. Despite this, questions remain about insufficient enforcement and frequent violations of these laws. That is why the People for Animal Welfare (PAW) foundation and actor Jaya Ahsan filed this writ petition to put an end to cruelty to elephants.

The petition seeks to restrict the use of elephants in social events, street extortion, and circuses by identifying ethical problems and potential violations of the existing laws. Of late, after preliminary hearing of the petition, the HCD has issued a rule asking why steps should not be taken to stop cruelty to animals in the name of animal training. The court also stayed the issuance of new licenses and renewal of old licenses for rearing wild animals and elephants in the interim period and asked why the same should not be declared illegal.

This writ petition has the potential of influencing future legal challenges and legislative reviews pertaining to animal welfare and responsible human-elephant relations. It can have substantial impact shaping the jurisprudence pertaining to animal rights as well as interpretations of laws that are already in place.

Indeed, riding on elephants must be prohibited since elephants' backs are not meant to support substantial weight. As a result, pressure from riders, especially when saddles and other equipment are used can cause pain, arthritis, and spinal curvature to the animal. Elephants' normal movements and socialising, swimming, and foraging are restricted when carrying humans, which negatively affects the elephants' general well-being. Elephants that are raised for riding are frequently young, prematurely taken from their mothers, and put through rigorous training that injures them both physically and mentally.

Now, we may look at other countries' judicial developments relating to elephants' rights. Firstly, in 2018, the Supreme Court of India banned the use of ankush (sharp hooks) on elephants in circuses and performances, citing animal cruelty concerns and violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. In Sri Lanka, in 2019, the Sri Lankan government banned the use of elephants in parades and other public events, citing concerns about stress and fatigue caused by long journeys and loud noises. In Nepal, the Supreme Court banned the use of elephants in street begging in 2017, citing violations of their Animal Welfare Act. In Thailand in the year 2015, following a series of lawsuits and public pressure, elephant riding tours were banned in Chiang Mai province due to concerns about animal welfare and exploitation. The same year in Tanzania, a government task force recommended phasing out elephant riding in national parks due to concerns both about animal welfare and the potential for injuries to tourists.

Now, to play the role of devil's advocate, despite the case's focus on legal interpretations, alternative views must be acknowledged. Elephant owners may be economically dependent on these cultural behaviors and traditions since they are deeply rooted in society. While adjudicating on this case, all relevant matters must be considered properly.

To conclude, this writ petition has the potential of influencing future legal challenges and legislative reviews pertaining to animal welfare and responsible human-elephant relations. It can have substantial impact shaping the jurisprudence pertaining to animal rights as well as interpretations of laws that are already in place. Almost half of the total number of elephants are in captivity in Bangladesh. Their fate is inextricably linked with the petition's fate.

The writer is Diploma/CertHe in Common Law from University of London.