New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of Vantara, the wildlife rescue and rehabilitation centre launched by Reliance Industries and Reliance Foundation in Gujarat’s Jamnagar.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice J. Chelameswar will head the SIT that will examine various issues, including the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants, and ascertain whether the centre complies with the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and rules for zoos.
The other SIT members are former chief justice of the Uttarakhand and Telangana High Courts, Justice Raghvendra Chauhan, former Mumbai Police Commissioner Hemant Nagrale, and Additional Commissioner of Customs Anish Gupta.
The panel has been told to conduct an inquiry and submit a report to the top court by 12 September, after studying the concerns highlighted in the order.
The order by a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale came on two PILs—one by lawyer C.R. Jaya Sukin, and the other by a petitioner identified as Dev Sharma. These were filed in the wake of the shifting of an elephant named Mahadevi from a temple in Kolhapur to Vantara in July.
Notably, the SIT’s report, the court explained, will be a fact-finding inquiry that will assist the court to ascertain the true factual position to enable the court to pass any further orders. Any further order in the case would be based on the material furnished and contained in the report.
The court opted for the formation of an SIT because both the petitions, it noted, are based on news reports and stories on various social media platforms. The SIT, it added, will look into the veracity of these charges.
The order said, “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, “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, while choosing the SIT route and accepting that in ordinary circumstances it would not have entertained such petitions.
The court clarified that its order is not an expression or an opinion on the allegations made in the petitions. Its order, the bench said, should not be “construed to have cast any doubt on the functioning of any of the statutory authorities or the private respondent – Vantara”.
The order also gives the panel the liberty to inquire into complaints over financial compliance, money laundering, and those “regarding any other subject, issue or matter germane to the allegations made in these Petitions”.
To fulfil the court’s mandate, the order directed the SIT to conduct a physical verification and inspection of Vantara, and ordered the Gujarat Department of Forest Secretary to ensure “complete assistance and co-operation to the SIT in the state”.
The SIT will probe whether the Vantara project complied with the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) and import/ export laws while setting up this centre.
It will also examine if the centre meets other statutory requirements concerning imports/exports of live animals, standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care and standards of animal welfare were followed, and if it maintains records of mortalities and causes.
The other complaints it will look into range from climatic conditions and allegations concerning the location near an industrial zone.
The SIT will also examine allegations relating to the creation of a vanity or private collection, breeding and conservation programmes, use of biodiversity resources, misutilisation of water and carbon credits, breach of different provisions of law, trade in animals or animal articles and wildlife smuggling, “as made out in the articles/ stories/ complaints referred to in the petitions as well as generally”, are the other areas that would fall for the SIT’s consideration.
It was noted in the order that the two petitions were based on news reports and stories appearing in newspapers, social media and diverse complaints by non-governmental organisations and wildlife organisations and “accusations of wide amplitude viz, unlawful acquisition of animals from India and abroad, mistreatment of the animals in captivity, financial irregularities, money laundering, etc”.
Further commenting on the nature of allegations in the petitions, the order said that they “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,” it 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,” the court added.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: Latent apologies: Comedian Samay Raina cited ‘genuine social commitment’ in affidavit before SC