The Supreme Court Monday ordered an inquiry by a Special investigation Team (SIT) headed by its former judge, Justice J Chelameswar, into the affairs of Vantara, the wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centre of Reliance Foundation in Gujarat’s Jamnagar.
The apex court directed the SIT 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 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and rules for zoos.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale directed the setting up of the SIT on two 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 a temple in Kolhapur to Vantara in July.
The SIT will also include former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand and Telangana High Court Justice Raghavendra Chauhan, former Mumbai Police Commissioner Hemant Nagrale and Additional Commissioner Customs Anish Gupta. The SIT has been directed to conduct its inquiry “forthwith” and submit its report by September 12.
The SIT will also look into the International Convention on Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) and compliance with import/ export laws and other statutory requirements concerning imports/ exports of live animals; and, compliance with standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care, standards of animal welfare, mortalities and causes.
Besides, the SIT will 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 will also probe complaints over financial compliance, money laundering, etc., and those “regarding any other subject, issue or matter germane to the allegations made in these Petitions.”
Story continues below this ad
The bench 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”.
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.”
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 “make accusations of wide amplitude viz, unlawful acquisition of animals from India and abroad, mistreatment of the animals in captivity, financial irregularities, money laundering, etc.”
Story continues below this ad
It added that the petitions “are not confined to making allegations against the private respondent ‘Vantara’ but also cast aspersions upon statutory authorities such as Central Zoo Authority, The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as well as courts. In short, the petitions proceed to indict above referred institutions simply based upon media reporting.”
The court said that “upon the reading of the pleadings, we find that what has been presented through these petitions are only allegations with no material of probative worth. There appears to be no supporting material.”
However, it said that “considering the sweep of the allegations made in the petitions, inviting a counter from the private respondent or any other party will not serve much purpose.”
The court 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 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.”
