Vantara: What the SIT's sealed cover report in Supreme Court said

The Supreme Court on Monday closed the case against Vantara animal rescue and rehabilitation centre in Gujarat's Jamnagar [CR Jaya Sukin vs. Union of India].

A Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale accepted the findings of the special investigation team (SIT) which was appointed by the Bench to probe allegations of unlawful procurement of animals, mistreatment in captivity, financial and procedural irregularities, and suspected money laundering in relation to Vantara’s operations.

Vantara, an animal rescue, care and rehabilitation initiative of the Reliance Foundation, was founded by Anant Mukesh Ambani and was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2024.

The Supreme Court constituted an SIT on August 25 under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar. It was tasked with probing the allegations against Vantara raised by petitioner CR Jaya Sukin.

The SIT also consisted of former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand and Telangana High Courts Justice Raghavendra Chauhan, former Mumbai Police Commissioner Hemant Nagrale and Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Anish Gupta.

The SIT submitted its report in sealed cover, and the same was considered by the Court today.

The Bench noted that as per the SIT report, that there was complete and erudite compliance by Vantara with law and regulations.

The Court gave a clean chit to Vantara and also said that all complaints and petitions against it would be closed.

Pertinently, the Court also held that no further complaints or proceedings shall be entertained before any judicial, statutory or administrative forum upon the same set of allegations.

Pertinently, the Court also granted liberty to Vantara to initiate proceedings for deletion of any offending publications or any action against those responsible for misinformation or defamation.

The report, which was placed before the Court in sealed cover, was not made public but a summary of the report was elaborated by the Court in its order passed on Monday.

Below are the key findings rendered by the SIT.

Acquisition of animals

Allegation: Tens of thousands of animals, including elephants, chimpanzees and rare birds, had been smuggled or acquired in breach of Indian and international law.

What was examined: The SIT looked at permits under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, Recognition of Zoo Rules, CZA guidelines, CITES certifications from India and abroad, customs clearances, and 13 volumes of acquisition records submitted by Vantara. Specific cases such as elephant Madhuri, chimpanzees from the DRC, and the Spix’s Macaw from Germany were tested.

Reasoning: Every acquisition was backed by statutory approvals. Transfers were non-commercial and verified by multiple authorities. Courts had already upheld some transfers. The SIT concluded there was no breach of wildlife, zoo, trade, customs, FEMA or PMLA laws.

Animal welfare and mortality

Allegation: Animals were kept in concrete enclosures, mortality rates were high and welfare standards were compromised.

What was examined: Site inspections were compared against drone imagery cited in complaints. Veterinary records and mortality data were analysed with expert input. An independent audit by the Global Humane Society carried out a nine-day evaluation with international specialists.

Reasoning: Welfare standards met and often exceeded benchmarks of the Central Zoo Authority and global practice. Mortality figures matched international averages. The Global Humane Society awarded Vantara its “Global Humane Certified Seal of Approval,” confirming compliance and excellence.

Location and climate

Allegation: The facility’s proximity to an industrial zone endangered animals.

What was examined: Environmental data, air quality records, and climatic history were reviewed. Expert assessments compared the site with other global zoos located in urban or industrial areas.

Reasoning: Climate was found congenial, air quality within limits, and modern habitat systems in place. Allegations were dismissed as unfounded.

Financial impropriety and laundering

Allegation: Vantara laundered money, misused carbon credits and made illegal payments for animals.

What was examined: Invoices, financial flows, and responses from the Enforcement Directorate, CBI and DRI.

Reasoning: Payments cited were only for freight and insurance. No cash or crypto flows, no laundering, and no misuse of carbon credits were detected. The SIT called these claims baseless and sensationalist.

Vanity project claims

Allegation: Vantara was merely a private vanity collection under the garb of conservation.

What was examined: Staffing, MoUs with governments, conservation programmes, and breeding records.

Reasoning: With nearly 3,000 staff and structured breeding of cheetahs, lions, vultures, gharials, clouded and snow leopards, the facilities were found to be serious institutional enterprises. The “vanity” charge was rejected.

Dubious associations and smuggling links

Allegation: Links with individuals like Martin Guth or Nazeer Cajee showed complicity in smuggling.

What was examined: Chats, media articles, donor zoo records and MoUs with foreign authorities.

Reasoning: Screenshots and hearsay lacked probative value. Past unrelated convictions of individuals abroad could not taint Vantara. Allegations were speculative.

Temple elephants issue

Allegation: Petitions and complaints alleged that elephants, including temple elephants, had been moved to the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT) in breach of law. Particular reference was made to the transfer of an elephant named Madhuri from Kolhapur in Maharashtra. It was also suggested that the Trust had amassed a large number of elephants without proper sanction.

What was examined: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) reviewed the acquisition of five elephants by the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) and 270 elephants by the RKTEWT. Records were checked under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009, and guidelines of the Central Zoo Authority. Decisions of the High Powered Committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Verma, which is empowered to decide on elephant transfers, were also scrutinised. The transfer of Madhuri was closely examined with reference to court proceedings.

Reasoning: The SIT concluded that the acquisitions of temple elephants were in full compliance with law. In the case of Madhuri, it found that the Trust had not initiated the request for transfer. The move was carried out following an order of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the High Powered Committee’s approval. That order was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Thus, the SIT held that no illegality or violation attached to the elephant transfers, and that the figures cited for elephant acquisitions reflected lawful processes.

What the Supreme Court concluded

Having considered the report, the Court accepted the SIT’s conclusions.

It held that repetitive petitions on the same set of allegations will not be entertained, described the complaints as speculative, and left Vantara free to seek remedies against defamatory publications.

The Court also appreciated the SIT’s “thoroughness and fearlessness”, ordered honorarium to its members and held that the cycle of speculative complaints has been nipped in the bud.

Senior Advocates HarishSalve appeared for Vantara.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Gujarat.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj and Aishwarya Bhati represented the Union government.

Advocates Shardul Singh, Manish Tiwari, Sayali Sawant, Prerna Gandhi, Anish Shahpurkar, Raghavv Sabharwal, Raghav Malhotra, Ayush Shrivastava, Harsh Vardhan, Sandeep Singh, Amit Kumar, Ashish Pandey, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gaurang Bhusan, Bhuvan Kapoor, Astha Singh, Anuj Udupa, Rohan Gupta, Manisha Chava, Anirudh Singh and Hemadri Sharma also appeared for Vantara along with Advocates-on-Record Manish Tiwari, Ashish Pandey, Gurmeet Singh Makker, M/s Lambat & Legiteam and MK Maroria.

[Read Order]