Why did Reliance’s Vantara get a clean chit in the SC?

On 15 September, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, accepted the findings of an Special Investigation Team (SIT) and closed the complaints against Vantara, an “initiative to rescue, protect and conserve wildlife.” Vantara is established and run by Reliance Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Mukesh Ambani-family controlled Reliance Industries. 

The SIT, in less than three weeks since it was formed, concluded that the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) and the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, (RKTEWT), Jamnagar—the two institutions that constitute Vantara—had complied with statutory requirements, contrary to the allegations made in media reports. 

How did the case reach the Court? 

C.R. Jaya Sukin and Dev Sharma, both advocates, had separately filed public interest petitions alleging irregularities at Vantara. The petitions were based on media stories, social media posts and complaints by NGOs and wildlife groups. The allegations were wide-ranging: unlawful acquisition of animals from India and abroad, mistreatment in captivity, financial irregularities, and even money laundering. The petitions questioned the role of courts and statutory authorities such as the Central Zoo Authority (CZA), and even raised concerns about the flouting of India’s treaty obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). 

On 25 August, the Bench remarked that the petitions rested only on media material and ordinarily deserved dismissal. However, because the allegations implied that statutory bodies and courts were incapable or unwilling to perform their duties, the judges constituted an SIT to conduct an independent inquiry. The SIT included Justice J. Chelameswar, former Supreme Court judge; R.S. Chauhan, former Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand and Telangana High Courts; Hemant Nagrale, former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai; and Anish Gupta, Additional Commissioner of Customs.

What were the petitioners’ concerns? 

Sharma’s petition reflected broader anxieties about the unregulated centralisation of genetic material in a privately controlled facility, without transparency or international oversight. He cited India’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Nagoya Protocol, and CITES, arguing that any such effort must be regulated under a framework that safeguards conservation, scientific accountability and national sovereignty. He pointed out that Vantara had described its aim as building a “global gene bank” or “living ark” of endangered species, yet the legal and scientific foundations of such an endeavour remained undefined under Indian law. 

Sharma did not contest the idea of conservation, but argued that concentrating endangered species, biodiversity assets, water resources, and carbon sinks in corporate hands raised serious concerns about oversight, ecological ethics, sovereign control and potential monetisation under schemes like carbon trading or water management.

Sharma cited journalist M. Rajshekhar’s March 2024 report in the online magazine Himal Southasian, which took a detailed look at some of the controversies surrounding Vantara including the transfers of elephants and exotic animals, the rapid accumulation of thousands of species and CITES-related concerns across continents. The petition also cited a January 2024 report in Animals 24-7, which covered the allegation of Vantara’s sourcing of animals from suppliers accused of illegal breeding and cruelty. The Animals 24-7 report also raised the issue of whether Vantara was truly a sanctuary or merely a zoo. 

Reports in outlets like Newslaundry, Hindustan Times, and the Singapore-based Straits Times were also referenced. The Newslaundry report, based on information obtained under RTI, questioned government clearances for Vantara’s import of endangered species from Mexico and for the acquisition of black panthers from Assam. 

Sharma anchored his legal argument in Article 21, which has been interpreted to include the right to a healthy environment, and Article 48A, which mandates the State to protect wildlife.

Jaya Sukin’s petition raised concerns about relocating wildlife to Vantara, alleging that many animals were trafficked rather than rescued. Sukin sought the return of captive elephants to their owners and the release of other wild animals.

What does the SIT’s summary say about Vantara? 

On 12 September, a mere 18 days after its constitution, the SIT filed its report with the Supreme Court under sealed cover. On 15 September, the Bench opened the cover, read the report, but only released the summary of the report along with its Order. 

In the summary, the SIT stated that it had examined documents and affidavits, undertaken site visits, sought expert opinions and held personal hearings, in coordination with multiple central and state agencies. It had considered allegations relating to smuggling, laundering, animal husbandry, conservation, breeding, climatic suitability and financial irregularities. The agencies it had received responses from included the CZA, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), CITES Management Authority of India, the CBI, Enforcement Directorate, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs, and the jurisdictional superintendent of police.

The summary concluded that there was no violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009, the CZA guidelines, the Customs Act, the Foreign Trade Act, FEMA, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, or CITES. It found Vantara’s facilities exceeded statutory benchmarks and that mortality figures matched global zoological averages. Allegations about misuse of carbon credits, water resources and finances were dismissed as baseless. 

The SIT concluded that all imports—the 29,274 animals acquired by GZRRC and the 6,034 animals acquired by RKTEWT—were lawful. The acquisition of 270 elephants by RKTEWT and five by GZRRC was also deemed fully compliant. Imports were said to have undergone multi-layered scrutiny by authorities, including the CZA, MoEFCC, Animal Husbandry Department, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, WCCB, quarantine services and Customs. According to the SIT, mere numerical volume of imports is not, in itself, indicative of illegality; carrying capacity, certified by the CZA, was the relevant metric, and GZRRC’s approval for 75,000 animals was lawful.

The SIT also addressed animal deaths, attributing them to natural causes and finding them consistent with global averages. It dismissed the idea that Vantara was a “vanity collection,” noting its employment of nearly 3,000 personnel, including global experts, and the scale of its operations. The cheetah breeding programme, which had already recorded 17 births, and initiatives for 41 endangered species, were highlighted as evidence of serious commitment to animal welfare.

One strand of criticism in the petitions centred on Martin Guth, founder of the German organisation ACTP, which partners with GZRRC on parrot conservation projects. Guth, convicted decades ago in Germany for crimes unrelated to wildlife, has faced questions over ACTP’s sourcing of birds. The SIT described the claims against Guth as “imaginative”, noting that they were motivated by “white man’s prejudice” against an Indian facility which has been operating at a high standard. 

What did the Court find? 

The Court said it had “no hesitation” in accepting the SIT’s conclusions. It held that imports could not be disputed if they were fully documented. To support their finding, the judges cited inspections by the CZA, Gujarat’s Chief Wildlife Warden and CITES authorities in India. The Bench also referred to the fact that the facilities had received the ‘Certified Seal of Approval’ by the Global Humane Society. 

The Court noted that Vantara had been subject to judicial scrutiny a number of times in the past and the allegations against it had been rejected “most of the times at every level/forum”. Therefore, it would be “wholly unjustified” to “permit the cycle of speculative complaints or petitions to continue despite such authoritative determinations in the past.” The Court went so far as directing that no further complaint or proceeding could be entertained on the issues that have been conclusively investigated by the SIT. 

The Court also “left it open” to Vantara pursue legal remedies “for the deletion of any offending publication or for any action against those responsible for the misinformation or for actions for defamation or private complaints under the BNS, 2023.” 

The SIT’s complete report, meanwhile, was directed to remain under sealed cover. Yet, it was handed over to Vantara, for its “own use and record.” 

What are some concerns around the SC’s order? 

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) had alleged that Vantara had amassed thousands of animals from South Africa and elsewhere through questionable processes. WAPFSA noted that despite GZRRC’s explanation that it has rescued animals in difficult conditions outside India, there are concerns about the legality of its transactions and the methods used to obtain CITES documents. The SIT, however, noted it had examined all the permits and related documents and found that the specimens were captive bred and the transfers were “not commercial.” 

In an emailed response to the Supreme Court Observer, Megan Carr, administrator of WAPFSA, said: “WAPFSA is unfortunately unable to comment on the three week investigation carried out by four investigators who allegedly spent three days at Vantara which is home to 45000 rescued wild animals. We have noted that the investigation itself has been publicly criticised and even described by the media as greenwashing. We cannot possibly comment on this observation. WAPFSA will continue to closely monitor information about South African international exports of all live wild animals including lions, leopards, cheetahs and tigers no matter where the destination.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling may have vindicated Vantara but it doesn’t dispel many of the concerns around the project. The Court’s direction of withholding the full SIT report from the public for “confidentiality” has been criticised for compromising transparency in a matter involving public trust obligations toward wildlife. 

When asked about the sealed cover nature of the report, Justice Chelameswar told the Supreme Court Observer: “The summary released by the Court is what we have found, though I can’t find any reason why the Court can’t release the full report. If anyone is keen to obtain a copy of the full report, they can make a request to the Court and see whether they succeed in getting it. Sharing it with the media would mean contempt of court, though I don’t have a copy of the report myself.” 

Given the number of permits and agencies involved, it is remarkable that the SIT completed its job in less than three weeks—extremely quick compared to the drawn-out timelines fact-finding bodies usually follow. But, as Justice Chelameswar told SCO, there is no reason for the report not to be made public. 

Separately, larger constitutional questions remain open: should Schedule I species be transferred between states without Union-level oversight? Is private conservation consistent with Articles 48A and 51A(g)? There also remains the question of why the Court’s approach departed from the continuing mandamus model it has deployed in other environmental cases. In matters concerning Asiatic lion relocation and the constitutionality of the Forest Rights Act rights, the Court has preferred an approach of ongoing oversight. The Court has kept T.N. Godavarman—one of the longest-running litigations in India—open under a continuing mandamus to monitor existing environmental cases, and take up new ones of its own accord. 

One could argue that the private nature of the conservation effort meant that the Court could take a different approach. This private effort is not objectionable per se, especially in a country where state capacity often has to be directed towards other priorities. 

Wildlife-rich African nations like South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia have deployed models such as “conservancies” with some degree of success. But, given the public’s stake in biodiversity and wildlife, it’s important that due process is followed and governance guardrails are in place. If India is to go down the road of more private sector involvement in environmental conservation, there is a need for a higher degree of transparency—’sealed covers’ do not inspire confidence.