The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by a lawyer, Rahul Narula, regarding ill-treatment towards the animals in the Ambani Weddings. The court imposed costs on the lawyer Rahul Narula noting that ‘Since he is a practicing advocate, he is impressed upon to desist from filing such frivolous petitions in the future’.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by lawyer Rahul Narula, which centered on allegations of mistreatment of animals during the Ambani weddings.
The petition was based on an article titled “The Costs of Reliance’s Wildlife Ambitions,” published by the online platform Himal Southasian. Although the court ultimately rejected the petition, it made notable observations about the nature of the allegations presented.
The Bench, led by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, described the allegations in the article as
“utterly in bad taste, unsavory and unpalatable.”
The court criticized the article’s headline, narrative, and layout, noting,
“The headline of the article, its narrative and the layout chosen for the article i.e., large and enhanced photos, flashy colours and use of morphed photos, seem to be an attempt to attract the attention of the audience.”
The court further lamented that the article included
“innuendos towards the HPC as well as statutory authorities,”
-reflecting poorly on the integrity of the content.
Advocate Pritam Bishwas, representing the petitioner, also sought to establish contempt against the Chairpersons and office bearers of the High-Powered Committee (HPC), as well as the private respondents, based on the claims made in the article.
However, the court found a significant lack of prima facie evidence to substantiate any accusations of inhumane or cruel treatment towards animals. Justice Sharma emphasized that the article itself did not provide proof of any “illegal, sordid, or wanton acts of cruelty” during the wedding events.
Moreover, the court reiterated that newspaper reports, by their nature, cannot be relied upon as a basis for legal action. These reports are generally considered hearsay and are deemed unreliable unless supported by legally admissible evidence.
The court underscored that during the hearing, the petitioner admitted to not conducting any independent verification of the article’s claims, nor had any Right to Information (RTI) requests or corroborative evidence been sought or collected.
Justice Sharma observed that the article’s content, including the cited documents and social media excerpts, did not constitute credible or legally admissible material. He further noted that the Supreme Court has previously cautioned against the reliance on such reports, especially when the writer has consulted various individuals without verifying their claims.
As a result, the court dismissed the petition, imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner as a deterrent against filing frivolous petitions in the future.
The article in question, published by Himal Southasian, discussed Reliance Industries’ operation of Vantara, a large wildlife center within its Jamnagar refinery complex, which houses over 4,700 animals, including endangered species.
The facility, part of the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust and Greens Zoological, Rescue, and Rehabilitation Centre, is designed to rescue and care for abused animals. While the center has been praised for providing high-quality care, concerns have been raised about the suitability of the Jamnagar environment—specifically its heat and pollution—for the animals, as well as ethical questions regarding the sourcing and necessity of maintaining such a large collection of wildlife.
The article further highlighted that recent relaxations in India’s wildlife regulations have facilitated Vantara’s rapid expansion, which has sparked skepticism about its impact on wildlife management and legal compliance.
The expansion has included acquiring additional properties and animals from around the world, leading to speculation about potential breeding farms or private reserves.
While Greens, associated with Vantara, denies these claims and asserts compliance with wildlife laws, concerns persist about controversial elephant transfers and possible violations of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) norms, adding to the scrutiny of Vantara’s operations.
CaseTitle:
Rahul Narula v Union Of India & Ors. (2024:DHC:6512).
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on AMBANI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
