The Supreme Court Monday said that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) it constituted to inquire into the affairs of Vantara, the wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centre launched by Reliance Industries and Reliance Foundation in Gujarat’s Jamnagar, had found “regulatory compliance” in its operations.
“Acquisition of animals carried out in regulatory compliances… Authorities have expressed satisfaction on the issues of compliances and regulatory measures,” a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale said, quoting from the report.
The court said it will pass an order incorporating the findings.
Setting up the SIT under its former judge Justice J Chelameswar, the apex court had on August 25 directed it to examine and submit a report on a number of issues, including the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants, and compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and rules for zoos.
SIT set up in the wake of two PILs
The court directed the setting up of the SIT on two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) – one by C R Jaya Sukin, a lawyer, and the other by a petitioner identified as Dev Sharma – filed in the wake of a controversy over the shifting of an elephant named Mahadevi from Kolhapur to Vantara in July.
The SIT also included former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand and Telangana high courts Justice Raghvendra Chauhan, former Mumbai police commissioner Hemant Nagrale, and Additional Commissioner Customs Anish Gupta. It was directed to begin the inquiry “forthwith” and submit a report by September 12.
The court, in its order, asked the SIT to also look into the International Convention on Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) and compliance with import and export laws and other statutory requirements concerning import and export of live animals, besides compliance with standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care, standards of animal welfare, mortalities, etc.
Story continues below this ad
Directions to look into climate, location, breeding
The top court also directed it to examine complaints covering a range of other issues: climatic conditions and allegations concerning location near an industrial zone; creation of a vanity or private collection, breeding, conservation programmes and use of biodiversity resources; misutilisation of water and carbon credits; allegations of breach of different provisions of law, trade in animals or animal articles, wildlife smuggling, etc, “as made out in the articles/ stories/complaints referred to in the petitions as well as generally”.
The SIT was also asked to probe complaints over financial compliance, money laundering, and so on, and those “regarding any other subject, issue or matter germane to the allegations made in these Petitions.”
The order asked the SIT to “carry out a physical verification and inspection of” Vantara and directed that the secretary, Department of Forest, Gujarat, “shall be responsible to ensure complete assistance and co-operation to the SIT in the state.”
The bench “clarified that the above exercise undertaken by the SIT has been permitted only to assist the court as a fact-finding inquiry so as to ascertain the true factual position and to enable the court to pass any further order, as may be deemed fit on the basis of the material furnished and contained in the report”.
Story continues below this ad
The bench added that it “neither expresses any opinion on the allegations made in the petitions nor this order be construed to have cast any doubt on the functioning of any of the statutory authorities or the private respondent Vantara.”
Pleas based on media reports, complaints
The bench pointed out that the two petitions “are based exclusively on news and stories appearing in the newspapers, social media and diverse complaints by non-governmental organisations and wildlife organisations” and they make accusations of wide amplitude, including “unlawful acquisition of animals from India and abroad, mistreatment of the animals in captivity, financial irregularities, money laundering, etc.”
While setting up the SIT, it said, “…ordinarily, a petition resting on such unsupported allegations does not deserve in law to be entertained, rather warrant dismissal… However, in the wake of the allegations that the statutory authorities or the courts are either unwilling or incapable of discharging their mandate, more particularly in the absence of verification of the correctness of the factual situation, we consider it appropriate in the ends of justice to call for an independent factual appraisal, which may establish the violation, as alleged, if any.”
