Today, On 15th September, The Supreme Court said Vantara follows the law strictly and is a pride of India. It stressed that positive developments must be appreciated, noting the SIT report confirmed compliance and addressed all concerns about animal care and management.
The Supreme Court on Monday heard a writ petition seeking an investigation into Vantara (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre), a wildlife facility managed by the Reliance Foundation in Jamnagar, Gujarat.
The petition, filed by CR Jaya Sukin and Dev Sharma, alleged unlawful acquisition of animals, violations of wildlife protection laws, and financial irregularities at the facility.
In response, the Supreme Court had earlier constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine these allegations.
The Bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, noted the submission of the SIT report.
The Court said,
“You submit the report we will pass order if required.”
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the private respondent, stated,
“The report speaks for itself, please refer to it.”
Justice Mithal responded,
“We haven’t opened it yet, but note that it has been submitted promptly.”
The Bench reviewed the summary of the SIT report and observed,
“It reflects thorough regulatory compliance and notes that stakeholders have shared their views. The authorities have expressed satisfaction regarding compliance. We will incorporate the report into the order.”
The Solicitor General suggested,
“That may not be necessary, it can simply be noted that you have reviewed it.”
Salve raised concerns over sensitive information, stating,
“The report contains proprietary information about animal care, with commercial confidentiality concerns. We do not want such details made public, yet we see coverage in international media.”
The Supreme Court assured,
“We will not permit that.”
Justice Varale added,
“The Committee has addressed all issues comprehensively. We will allow the authorities to act on the recommendations made by the Committee.”
Salve further assured the Court,
“We assure the Court that all suggested improvements and ameliorative measures will be implemented, and we stand to benefit from this process.”
Justice Mithal confirmed,
“We will review the report in detail and pass the order in chamber.”
He also noted,
“We now have the report from an independent committee assisted by experts. Authorities are free to act on the recommendations. No one will be allowed to repeatedly raise questions. We had posed ten questions, all of which the committee has addressed.”
During the hearing, Sukin raised concerns regarding a temple elephant, stating,
“There was a temple elephant that was taken.”
Justice Mithal responded,
“These elephants are tortured. On what basis can you claim they are not well cared for by Vantara?”
Sukin added,
“There was a payment of Rs.11 lakhs, and the elephant was taken to Vantara.”
Salve questioned the relevance, saying,
“The temple isn’t here why is this gentleman?”
Justice Mithal concluded,
“Some things are a pride of our country. We cannot raise these issues to create unnecessary uproar. Let positive developments also be acknowledged and appreciated.”
The Court further clarified,
“If the acquisition of elephants is done according to law and all provisions are followed, there is no issue. General statements like this cannot be entertained.”
The Supreme Court had earlier instructed the SIT to carry out its inquiry without delay and to submit its findings by September 12. The Court had also laid down a clear list of issues that the SIT needed to examine and report on.
These included:
(a) Acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants;
(b) Compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and rules for zoos under the Act;
(c) Adherence to the International Convention on Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) and compliance with import/export laws for live animals;
(d) Compliance with standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care, animal welfare, as well as investigation into animal deaths and their causes;
(e) Complaints about climatic conditions and concerns about the location of Vantara near an industrial zone;
(f) Complaints alleging that Vantara is functioning as a vanity or private collection instead of a genuine conservation project, and concerns about its breeding, conservation programs, and biodiversity use;
(g) Complaints regarding misuse of water resources and carbon credits;
(h) Complaints about violation of legal provisions, wildlife smuggling, illegal animal trade, or dealing in animal articles, as highlighted in petitions, articles, and stories;
(i) Complaints relating to financial compliance and possible money laundering;
(j) Any other issue connected to the allegations raised in the petitions.
Case Title: CR Jaya Sukin v. Union of India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Vantara