The Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ by Karanartham Viramah Foundation alleging CITES violations, holding disturbing lawfully imported animals’ environment may cause cruelty, citing East India Commercial case and refusing directions under Article 32.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Karanartham Viramah Foundation, which alleged breaches of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in connection with animal imports by private organisations. The petition, brought under Article 32 of the Constitution, sought directions based on the alleged contravention of CITES.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria observed,
“The principles enunciated in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. The Collector of Customs, 1962 AIR 1893 would clearly apply. More importantly, disturbing the settled environment, custody and air of living animals, including rescued animals after lawful import, may itself result in cruelty. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed…”
Senior Advocate Santosh Paul represented the petitioner. The Court noted that the core issues raised in this petition were substantially identical to matters already considered in another writ petition. Those matters had been investigated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Court, and the SIT’s final report was accepted by this Court on September 15, 2025. The report concluded that there was no violation of domestic or international law.
Addressing the CITES material relied upon by the petitioner, the Court stated,
“It is also to be noted that the CITES Secretarial Document relied upon by the petitioner, does not assist his case. On the contrary, the said document records that CITES Secretariat found no evidence that the animals had been imported without the requisite CITES documentation or import permits and there is no evidence that such imports were for commercial purposes. Thus, the said conclusion is in consonance with the findings recorded by the SIT, and accepted by this Court.”
The bench further observed,
“We also note that once an import has been effected under the valid permission, the same cannot subsequently be treated as prohibited qua the importer merely because the objections were raised thereafter.”
The petition had sought several directions, including an order requiring the Union of India, Central Zoo Authority, Directorate General of Foreign Trade and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau to produce all records relating to permissions, recognitions and import/export licences issued to Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust since 2019 along with related CITES permits, internal evaluations, Central Zoo Authority minutes, and any correspondence with the CITES Secretariat or foreign management authorities.
It also sought the constitution of an Independent National Wildlife Trade Compliance Monitoring Committee, chaired by a retired judge of this Court and composed of experts in wildlife biology, international trade regulation and environmental law, to verify the legality and authenticity of all CITES-related permits linked to the two private entities.
The petition asked that Respondents 3 and 4 be directed to initiate proceedings under provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, including suspension or cancellation of zoo recognition if violations were found. Further prayers included directing Respondents 1 and 2 to frame and notify a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure for due diligence and verification of CITES permits within three months, and to bar further imports of Appendix I animals by private zoos or trusts until the Independent Committee completed its verification.
The Court reiterated that imports carried out under valid permissions cannot be retrospectively deemed prohibited solely because objections were raised later, and that disrupting the settled custody or environment of living or rescued animals after lawful import could amount to cruelty. For these reasons, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Karanartham Viramah Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1113/2025]
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
