Supreme Court Orders SIT Inquiry | Vantara Wildlife Centre’s Affairs and Animal Acquisition to Be Examined Under Wildlife (Protection) Act and CITES
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct an independent fact-finding inquiry into allegations concerning a zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre in Jamnagar, Gujarat. The Bench ordered the SIT to examine issues relating to acquisition of animals, compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, adherence to international conventions on trade in endangered species, and allegations of financial impropriety. The SIT has been directed to submit its report by 12 September 2025, with the matter listed for further consideration on 15 September 2025.
The matter before the Supreme Court arose out of two writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitions were described as being in public interest and were presented on the basis of newspaper reports, social media stories, and complaints from non-governmental and wildlife organizations. The petitions contained extensive allegations against a private zoological entity, popularly known as “Vantara @ Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre,” located in Jamnagar, Gujarat.
The allegations raised were wide-ranging in nature. They included accusations of unlawful acquisition of animals from India and abroad, alleged mistreatment of animals held in captivity, claims of financial irregularities, and purported acts of money laundering. The petitions also extended beyond the private entity to cast aspersions on statutory authorities including the Central Zoo Authority, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) management authority, as well as the functioning of courts.
The petitions suggested that these statutory authorities were unwilling or unable to discharge their mandate. The allegations were framed as indictments of institutional failures, derived entirely from publicly available news articles and complaints, without supporting material of probative value.
In its preliminary assessment, the Court recorded that the pleadings presented consisted solely of allegations without substantive supporting evidence. The Bench noted that ordinarily such petitions, resting only on unverified reports and unsupported assertions, would not be entertained and would warrant dismissal at the threshold.
However, in view of the seriousness of the accusations and the fact that statutory authorities themselves had been accused of inaction, the Court determined that it was appropriate, in the interests of justice, to call for an independent factual appraisal. The Court held that such an appraisal would establish whether any violations had occurred and provide a reliable foundation for any further judicial orders.
Accordingly, the Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team comprised of individuals of impeccable integrity and high repute, with extensive public service backgrounds. The SIT was mandated to examine the entirety of the allegations raised in the petitions and to submit a factual report to the Court.
The Court also noted that inviting responses from the private respondent or statutory authorities at this preliminary stage would serve little purpose given the sweeping nature of the allegations, which were not supported by material evidence.
The Court observed: “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.”
The Bench further stated: “Ordinarily, a petition resting on such unsupported allegations does not deserve in law to be entertained rather warrant dismissal in limine.”
At the same time, the Court recorded: “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.”
The Court elaborated: “Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to direct for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) of respectable persons of impeccable integrity and high repute having long public service.”
The order clarified the purpose of the SIT: “It is 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.”
It was also stated: “However, 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’.”
The Supreme Court formally constituted the Special Investigation Team with Justice Jasti Chelameswar, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as Chairperson. The members appointed were Justice Raghavendra Chauhan, former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand and Telangana High Courts; Mr. Hemant Nagrale, IPS (Former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai); and Mr. Anish Gupta, IRS (Additional Commissioner of Customs).
The SIT was directed to examine and submit a report on specific issues including the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and zoo rules, adherence to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and other import/export laws, standards of animal husbandry and veterinary care, climatic suitability of the location, and allegations of financial impropriety including money laundering.
The Court mandated that the SIT 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, were directed to extend full cooperation.
The Court recorded: “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 Director General (Forests), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, was made responsible for providing all logistical, travel, and secretarial support to the SIT. The SIT was permitted to take expert assistance or opinion from any domain expert of its choice. The SIT was further directed to carry out a physical verification and inspection of the Vantara centre in Jamnagar, with the State Forest Department instructed to provide complete cooperation.
Finally, the SIT was requested to conduct the inquiry forthwith and submit its report by 12 September 2025. The matter was ordered to be listed on 15 September 2025 for consideration of the report and any further directions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh, Advocate; Mr. Akash, Advocate; Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Sejal Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Srajan Shankar Kulshrestha, Advocate; Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR; Mr. Raghav Sabharwal, Advocate; Mr. Raghav Malhotra, Advocate; Petitioner-in-person; Ms. Ridhi Goel, Advocate; Ms. Divya Mishra, Advocate; Ms. Yashika Anand, Advocate; Md. Sadath Hussain, Advocate; Mrs. Suresh Kumari, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Tiwari, AOR; Mr. Shardul Singh, Advocate; Ms. Prerna Gandhi, Advocate; Mr. Anish Shahpurkar, Advocate.
Case Title: C.R. Jaya Sukin v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 783 of 2025 with W.P.(C) No. 779 of 2025
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
