In a move that has raised eyebrows and sharp criticism, the Supreme Court of India has accepted the report of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and granted a clean chit to Vantara, the sprawling animal rescue and rehabilitation initiative in Gujarat run by Reliance Foundation.
The court’s decision, which comes after a whirlwind probe by the SIT, effectively dismisses all allegations of wrongdoing, including the unlawful acquisition of animals, financial improprieties, and violations of international wildlife trade regulations. This swift judicial conclusion, however, has ignited a fresh round of debate on the nature of justice in India, particularly when it intersects with immense corporate power.
Also read: Vantara wildlife sanctuary: Conservation or corporate vanity?
The court’s acceptance of the SIT report was unequivocal. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale, after perusing the report, declared that Vantara was in “strict compliance with laws” and that its animal acquisition processes were “within the regulatory mechanism.”
They further observed that the welfare standards at the facility exceeded prescribed benchmarks and that the mortality figures were aligned with global averages. The court went on to say that there was no merit in the allegations of animal smuggling or money laundering, relying on responses from agencies like the CBI, DRI, and ED.
In a striking statement, Justice Mithal urged against raising a “hue and cry” over the matter, saying, “Allow certain good things to happen to the country. We should be happy about all these good things.” The court’s order also made it clear that no further complaints or proceedings based on the same set of allegations would be entertained, nor would it allow any third party to access the SIT report, effectively putting a judicial seal of finality on the matter.
The speed and secrecy surrounding the entire Vantara case have been a source of significant public unease. The SIT, headed by a former Supreme Court judge, was constituted with a mandate to look into a wide range of allegations, from the acquisition of elephants to compliance with the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
While the court’s order states that the SIT’s findings will be part of the final order, the report itself was submitted in a sealed cover, a move that lawyers for Vantara had advocated for, citing concerns that its public release could lead to further “speculation.” This lack of transparency stands in stark contrast to the court’s own recent pronouncements on public access to information.
Critics point to a series of events that suggest a pattern of regulatory bending to accommodate the Vantara project. The establishment of the Greens Zoological, Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) and the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT) has been marked by remarkable administrative agility. The timeline for its approvals, granted with unusual haste by the Modi regime, raises questions about whether standard procedures were adhered to.
The case of Brij Kishor Gupta, the GZRRC Director, is particularly illustrative. He was an Evaluation & Monitoring Officer with the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) when Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) applied for GZRRC’s approval. After the CZA granted its nod, Gupta resigned from his government post and immediately joined GZRRC as its Project Director. This swift transfer from regulator to regulated, while perhaps not illegal on the face of it, certainly creates a powerful impression of quid pro quo.
The sheer scale and speed of animal acquisition at Vantara also warrant scrutiny. According to the information available, GZRRC exceeded the CZA’s initial permission for housing leopards by a significant margin within its first year, a number that grew to more than four times the permissible limit by March 2023. The Chief Wild Life Warden of Gujarat is reported to have permitted this increase, but the basis for this permission remains unclear.
The facility also acquired a staggering number of birds, animals, and reptiles from various parts of India and abroad. The international procurements have been a particular point of contention, with reports from foreign investigative journalists suggesting that Vantara has received thousands of wild animals, including species subject to international trade bans under CITES.
The Wildlife Protection Act itself appears to have been amended to facilitate the transfer of elephants to Vantara. The 2022 amendment to Section 43 of the act cleared the way for the transfer of captive elephants for “religious or any other purpose” with the permission of the Central Government. This change, which has been widely criticized by animal rights groups, has been seen as a convenient loophole that has allowed elephants to be moved from far-flung states to Vantara, effectively sidestepping the earlier restrictions. The SIT, in its report, apparently did not find anything wrong with these transfers, despite the questions raised by the timing and nature of the legal amendment.
The contrast with other cases is striking. The same Supreme Court that has given its stamp of approval to a massive private zoo in record time has consistently adjourned hearings for bail pleas in prominent cases, leading to prolonged incarceration for citizens. The juxtaposition of the court’s tearing hurry in the Vantara matter with the languid pace of justice for others reinforces the perception that the gears of the legal system turn at different speeds for those with and without influence.
While the Supreme Court has officially given Vantara a clean bill of health, the case has left a number of troubling questions unanswered. The lack of public access to the SIT report, the apparent conflicts of interest, the regulatory overreach, and the selective speed of justice all contribute to a narrative of judicial legitimacy being bestowed upon a project born of immense wealth and political connections. The court’s statements urging the country to “be happy” about Vantara ring hollow for those who believe that a truly “good thing” for the country would be a justice system that is transparent, equitable, and accountable to all citizens, not just the privileged few.
