The Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition seeking a probe into wildlife imports by Vantara, an animal rescue and rehabilitation facility managed by the Reliance Group [Karanartham Viramah Foundation v. Union of India & Ors].

A Bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria noted that the issues raised in the plea had already been examined earlier by a court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The Court recorded that the SIT had submitted its final report, which was accepted by the Court in September 2025, and found no violation of domestic or international law at the facility.

“The final report of the SIT has been accepted by this Court…[and] categorically records that no violation of any domestic or international law was found,” the Bench noted.

The Court further observed that once imports have been made with valid permissions, they cannot later be treated as illegal merely because objections are raised subsequently.

“We also note that once an import has been effected under valid permission, the same cannot subsequently be treated as prohibited…merely because the objections were raised thereafter,” the Bench said.

It also flagged concerns about the welfare of animals if such actions were allowed.

“Disturbing the settled environment, custody and air of living animals, including rescued animals after lawful import, may itself result in cruelty,” the Court observed.

The Court also examined the reliance placed by the petitioner on a document issued by the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and found that it did not support the allegations.

“On the contrary, the said document records that CITES Secretariat found no evidence that the animals had been imported without the requisite CITES documentation or import permits and there is no evidence that such imports were for commercial purposes."

In view of these findings, the Bench held that there was no merit in the plea.

The petition had sought directions for disclosure of records relating to import licences and permissions, constitution of an independent monitoring committee and action under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against the entities involved.

However, the Court found that the issues had already been examined and closed in earlier proceedings.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Senior Advocate Santosh Paul and Advocate Ankur Yadav appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Order]