Sauraha, one of the main tourist destinations in Chitwan, a region of Nepal, has long been synonymous with elephant-back safaris. That is about to change. On 17 December 2025, in a judgment running to 62 pages, the Supreme Court of Nepal ordered that this practice be reviewed and replaced with more ethical alternatives.
The reasons behind this decision are several.
Legal and scientific reasoning
The core of the Supreme Court’s reasoning rests on medical and scientific evidence and on the formal recognition of animal sentience.
“The anatomical structure of an elephant’s spine, legs and body did not evolve to carry human passengers”, the Court observed in the judgment, going on to argue that: “Subjecting these animals to heavy loads and continuous circular routes causes severe physical stress, foot dermatitis and joint disorders. Using an elephant merely as a tool for human entertainment contradicts our legal duty to respect its intrinsic value and its welfare as a living biological being”.
The judges also considered the high levels of stress the animals experience when they are exploited on commercial safaris.
A gradual phase-out of safaris
The decision is not confined to an abstract ban: it sets out a genuine programme of judicial and administrative policy that the Nepalese Government is required to implement:
- A gradual phase-out of safaris through the progressive abandonment of the model based on carrying tourists on elephant back, converting the offer into activities that involve watching the animals from a distance, such as nature walks on foot (bush walks);
- A ban on chains and ethical management. The judges ordered the removal of chain restraint systems, the introduction of natural open spaces, and the design of proper diets and adequate veterinary care protocols;
- The planning of state rehabilitation centres dedicated to the retirement and care of elderly or disabled elephants.
These passages make it clear that such activities can offer the elephants no welfare whatsoever, and the Court therefore ordered that more ethical alternative solutions be found that take animal welfare into account.
In particular, the Court calls on the Government and the competent local authorities to take inspiration from existing activities such as walks in the savannah with the elephants, and to monitor the elephants’ conditions more closely, in order to prevent and report torture, violence, other inhuman treatment and the illegal trade in elephants. At the same time, it also ordered the creation of elephant sanctuaries where people can observe them, but at a safe distance and without any form of exploitation such as riding them.
The ban has not been without debate and comment. For example, Dipendra Khatiwada, chair of the United Elephant Management Cooperative Limited, said that “they are ready to move to a sanctuary model as envisaged by the Court, but it cannot happen overnight”.
He went on to propose “allowing healthy elephants of working age to continue with safaris for a few more years, while creating sanctuaries dedicated to elderly, sick or disabled elephants and integrating them into tourist activities”.
Against this background, in the coming months a solution will have to be found, balancing the needs of the various parties involved and ensuring a gradual but necessary phasing out of these forms of tourism, so that elephants are no longer ridden and exploited in activities which, as is now well established, are incompatible with their physical and psychological welfare, their rights and their freedom.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Nepal could genuinely become a milestone in the development of its own legal system, but also for those of other States. Elephants have a number of rights, among them, certainly, the right not to “carry people on their backs”.
