Supreme Court-appointed SIT gives clean chit to Vantara

A Supreme Court-appointed SIT on Monday gave a clean chit to ‘Vantara’ (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) run by the Reliance Foundation at Jamnagar, Gujarat which faced allegations of violation of the Wildlife Protection Act and other relevant statutes in acquisition of animals, particularly elephants, from India and abroad.

After perusing the SIT report submitted on Friday, a Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Punjab Varale said that authorities have expressed satisfaction on the issue of compliance and regulatory measures in Vantara.

“Acquisition of animals...carried out in regulatory compliance,” Justice Mithal noted.

Headed by former Supreme Court Judge J Chelameswar, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) included former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand and Telangana High Court Justice Raghvendra Chauhan, former Mumbai Police Commissioner Hemant Nagrale and IRS officer Additional Commissioner Customs Anish Gupta as its members.

The top court had set up the SIT on August 25 while hearing two PILs, including one filed by advocate CR Jaya Sukin, who made widespread allegations against Vantara and statutory authorities and even courts.

Justice Mithal said that as per the SIT report, acquisition of animals was within the regulatory mechanism.

As the Bench said it will make the report a part of its order, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior counsel Harish Salve, representing Vantara, objected to it, saying a certain narrative was going on and publishing the report would allow more speculation than necessary.

The Bench said it will pass orders and will then close the matter. “We are closing the matter and we are accepting the report…We are satisfied with the report of the Committee...Now, we have a report of an independent committee, they have gone through everything, they have taken help from experts. Whatever they have submitted, we will go by that. And all authorities will be free to take actions based on recommendations and suggestions. We will not permit anyone to raise questions again and again,” the Bench said.

The top court had asked the SIT to examine and submit report on acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants; compliance of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and rules for zoos made thereunder; 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; compliance with standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care, standards of animal welfare, mortalities and causes thereof; and complaints regarding climatic conditions and allegations concerning location near an industrial zone.

It had also asked the SIT to examine complaints regarding creation of a vanity or private collection, breeding, conservation programs and use of biodiversity resources; complaints regarding misutilisation of water and carbon credits; complaints regarding allegations of breach of different provisions of law, trade in animals or animal articles, wildlife smuggling etc. as made in the articles/stories/complaints referred to in the petitions as well as generally; complaints regarding issues of financial compliance, money laundering etc. and complaints regarding any other subject, issue or matter germane to the allegations made in these petitions.

“The SIT shall be assisted fully by the Central Zoo Authority, the CITES Management Authority, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the State of Gujarat, including its Forest and Police Departments. All private persons and entities, including Vantara, shall also extend full cooperation. Any incident of non-assistance or non-cooperation by any person, authority or institution brought to the notice of this Court or noted in the SIT’s report, would compel this Court to consider taking appropriate actions or to issue directions, including action for contempt,” the top court had ordered.

However, it had clarified that “this order 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’ and that it was only “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…”

Interestingly, the Bench had said, “…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.”

“Ordinarily, a petition resting on such unsupported allegations does not deserve in law to be entertained, rather warrant dismissal in limine (at the threshold). 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,” it had said, while ordering an SIT probe.