Reliance’s Vantara cleared of PIL allegations: What SC’s investigation team found

The petition alleged that Vantara was involved in the illegal acquisition of animals, claiming that some “endangered species were smuggled into Vantara”. It raised concerns about potential non-compliance with international wildlife trade regulations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Further, the plea claimed that Vantara was operating without the necessary clearances under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and described it as a facility for “commercial purpose” rather than a genuine conservation effort. The petitioner demanded a Supreme Court-monitored committee to investigate these “illegalities” and sought the return of all allegedly captive elephants at Vantara to their actual owners.

Formation of SIT

On August 25, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale, while hearing the petitions, questioned the legitimacy of the allegations. It noted that the petitions were “based exclusively on news and stories appearing in the newspapers, social media and diverse complaints” and that there appeared to be “no supporting material” of “probative worth.”

Ordinarily, the court said, such a petition would warrant immediate dismissal. However, “in the wake of the allegations that the statutory authorities or the Courts are either unwilling or incapable of discharging their mandate,” the bench decided against it. Instead, to conduct an “independent factual appraisal,” it ordered the constitution of a high-powered four-member SIT.

The SIT was chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar and included Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan (former Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand and Telangana High Courts), Hemant Nagrale (former Mumbai Police Commissioner) and Anish Gupta (an Indian Revenue Service officer). Its mandate was extensive: to examine everything from the acquisition of animals and compliance with wildlife laws to animal husbandry standards and allegations of financial impropriety. The SIT was directed to submit its report by September 12.

What the SIT found

After conducting site visits and coordinating with multiple central and state agencies — including the Central Zoo Authority (CZA), the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate — the SIT submitted its report in a sealed cover on September 12.

The Supreme Court accepted the report on Monday and detailed a summary of its key findings:

1. No violation of laws and conventions

The SIT concluded that there is no violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009, CZA guidelines, Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act, 1992, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or CITES.

2. Legal acquisition of animals

The acquisition of animals, both from within India and through imports, was found to have been carried out in regulatory compliance without any violation of the relevant laws.

Each import underwent “complex multi-layered/multi-jurisdictional statutory approvals, procedures and documentation.” Imports were made only after the issuance of valid permits.

Exports from “Donor Zoos” to Vantara were under valid CITES permits and confirmed as non-commercial transactions by government agencies. The SIT agreed that once foreign and Indian authorities approve such transfers, there is no reason to question the validity of permits.

3. High standards of animal welfare and care

The SIT, with expert assistance, concluded that the standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care and animal welfare at Vantara were fully compliant with prescribed guidelines. The facilities were found to be of the highest international standards, not merely adhering to but in several aspects exceeding CZA benchmarks in zoological management and conservation.

Mortalities were attributed to natural biological causes, consistent with global zoological trends, and not a result of deficiencies in husbandry, veterinary care or welfare standards. Statutory procedures for animal deaths were complied with.

4. Suitable climatic conditions and location

Based on expert inputs, environmental data and inspection, the SIT found that the climatic conditions at the site were congenial for the species housed and did not adversely affect their health or welfare.

The allegation of unsuitability due to proximity to an industrial zone was not borne out. The SIT noted that the facilities were near a large residential township and that globally, it is not unusual for zoological establishments to be situated within or near urbanised or industrialised areas.

5. Legitimate conservation and breeding programs

The SIT found no basis to support the allegation of a vanity or private collection. Vantara’s operations demonstrated the “scale, professionalism and governance of a large institutional enterprise”, which was “inconsistent with the notion of a private collection.”

Vantara’s conservation and breeding programs for 41 endangered species were found to be operating fully in accordance with the law and “designed on sound scientific and conservation principles”.

6. Baseless allegations of misutilisation of resources and financial impropriety

Complaints alleging misutilisation of water resources and carbon credits were found to be “wholly baseless and lacking even the semblance of factual or legal foundation”. The SIT rejected these allegations as “frivolous”.

The SIT found “no credible, tangible or prosecutable evidence” for any financial irregularities, trade in animals or wildlife smuggling allegations. It appended a list of 36 complainants that included the two petitioners, intervenors in the matter, writers of critical media reports on Vantara, as well as other persons who had reached out to the SIT with complaints or information.

These complainants, it noted, often provided only news clippings and secondary articles, which constituted hearsay and did not meet a prima facie threshold for an offence.

Court shuts the door on future complaints

The bench accepted the SIT report in its entirety, stating it had “no hesitation in accepting the conclusion so drawn in the report.” The court observed that “repeated inquiries into the affairs of Vantara pursuant to multiple complaints/petitions filed from time to time have culminated with findings of no violation of law whatsoever.”

Based on this, the court passed a series of directions that not only closed the current matter but, in a move that went beyond the original scope of the petitions, also provided Vantara with a shield against future litigation on the same grounds.

The court ordered that all complaints and petitions mentioned in the SIT report “stand duly investigated and closed.” It also directed that “[n]o further complaint or proceedings based upon such same set of allegations shall be entertained before any judicial statutory or administrative forum.”

The court also granted Vantara the liberty “to pursue its remedies in accordance with law for the deletion of any offending publication or for any action against those responsible for the misinformation or for actions for defamation.” This gives the organisation a legal pathway to challenge media reports and allegations it deems false.

The full SIT report remains confidential, with only Vantara receiving a copy. However, the summary of the investigation, findings and recommendations has been made a part of the court’s public order.