Supreme Court - Daily Orders
C.R. Jaya Sukin vs Union Of India on 15 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 783/2025
C.R. JAYA SUKIN PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 779/2025
ORDER
1. Heard the petitioner-in-person, Mr. Harish N Salve, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned Advocate-on-Record and Mr. Shardul Singh, learned counsel and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India.
2. These two Writ Petitions were filed in public interest making allegations about Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Trust (for short, ‘respondent – Vantara’).
3. This Court vide order dated 25.08.2025 noted that the allegations made in the Writ Petitions Signature Not Verified were unsubstantiated and were without any probative Digitally signed by SNEHA DAS Date: 2025.09.15 17:41:24 IST Reason: material. Yet, considering the gravity of the allegations and the claims made that authorities were unwilling or incapable of conducting an 2 investigation into those allegations, we constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelmeswar (Former Judge of the Supreme Court), Mr. Justice R.S. Chauhan (Former Chief Justice, Uttarakhand and Talengana High Court), Mr. Hemant Nagrale (Former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai) and Mr. Anish Gupta (IRS) to undertake a fact finding inquiry and to investigate the matters as mentioned in the order dated 25.08.2025.
4. As directed, the SIT filed its report and summary with annexures and pen drives on 12.09.2025. The report filed in sealed cover was opened and perused by us. It indicates that the SIT with the help of multiple Central and State agencies, regulatory and enforcement bodies, had examined reports and affidavits, conducted site visits, obtained expert opinion and granted personal hearings. The SIT during the inquiry covered the entire range of allegations not only concerning acquisition of animals, smuggling, laundering, but also regarding welfare and husbandry, conservation and breeding, climatic and location issues, and financial and trade improprieties.
5. It is also evident that SIT coordinated with 3 the Central Zoo Authority, wildlife Crime Control Bureau, CITES Management Authority of India, Central Bureau of Investigation, Directorate of Enforcement, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs Department and the Jurisdictional Police and carried out a thorough and extensive investigation into complaints particularly those listed in Schedule A of the summary of the report.
The SIT after thorough investigation in coordination with the above multiple agencies clearly opined and concluded that there is no violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009, CZA guidelines, Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Trade (Regulation and development) Act, 1992, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora.
6. The Court has no hesitation in accepting the conclusion so drawn in the report. Thus, as no contravention of law has been reported by the SIT, the complaints particularly those listed in Schedule A in the summary of the report stand closed.
7. On the basis of the report of the SIT, the 4 Court is of the opinion that the receipt of animals by the respondent - Vantara by rescuing them from various situations and housing them in the rescue centre for conservation, and breeding programs have gone through a complex multi-layered/multi-
jurisdictional statutory approvals, procedure and documentation. The imports of the animals have been made only after issuance of valid permits. Once the imports of animals is fully documented and supported by valid permits, it is not open for anyone to go beyond the said permits and to dispute the validity attached to such permits or official acts. The import clearance in India is after various checks and compliances which are regulated and enforced by multiple statutory authorities as recorded by the SIT in the summary of the report.
It is pertinent to mention that repeated inquiries into the affairs of Vantara pursuant to multiple complaints/petitions filed from time to time have culminated with findings of no violation of law whatsoever. Thus, there is apparently no merit in any of the allegations of animal smuggling or laundering.
8. On the aspect of welfare standards to be adopted and followed for the conservation and preservation of the animals at Vantara, the SIT 5 after taking expert opinion has found that the Vantara facilities exceed prescribed benchmark and the mortality figures align with the global zoological averages. Upon consideration of the entire record, we are more than satisfied that the facilities at Vantara in certain respects exceeds the prescribed standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care and welfare as well as the statutory benchmarks laid down by the Central Zoo Authority. Independent bodies such as Global Human Society after site inspection and audit through a team has certified that respondent - Vantara has not only complied with but exceeded internationally recognised benchmarks. It has been awarded ‘Global Humane Certified Seal of Approval’ which is of significance as it provides independent validation of standards of welfare and conservation of animals.
9. The periodic inspection by the Central Zoo Authority and the Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat, along with assessments by CITES reinforced the above conclusion. The allegations of deficiency in welfare standard are therefore unfounded.
10. On the so-called allegations of misuse of carbon credits, water resources, or financial impropriety, the SIT has found them to be baseless 6 relying upon responses from agencies like CBI, DRI and ED. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate from whom the SIT sought expert assistance clarified that there is no breach of provisions of the prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The SIT deprecated the allegations and aspersions cast upon the statutory authorities, court appointed high power committee and also on the Courts. The respondent - Vantara in the past has been subjected to judicial scrutiny number of times and the allegations were rejected most of the times at every level/forum. Accordingly, to permit the cycle of speculative complaints or petitions to continue despite such authoritative determinations in the past would be wholly unjustified and an abuse of the process.
11. The SIT has noted with approval the decisions of the High Powered Committee headed by Justice Deepak Verma(former Judge of the Supreme Court) with regard to matters related to transfer of elephants in India.
12. While accepting the report and the summary with the Schedule A thereof, we direct as under:
(i) The proceedings of the report of the SIT i.e., its report and annexures including the pen drive be re-sealed and kept confidential but 7 complete copy of the same be furnished to the respondent – Vantara, may be electronic copy of the same for its own use and record subject to an undertaking that it shall not be disclosed to third parties;
(ii) The summary of the report which is exhaustive in itself as it does not carry
comparable sensitiveness or attract the same degree of confidentiality but provides a faithful account of the conclusions reached by the SIT, shall not be treated as confidential;
(iii) In terms of the recommendations contained in the summary and having regard to the exhaustive investigation conducted by the SIT aided by statutory enforcement agencies of the Central and the State, the complaints/petitions including newspaper reports, articles, catalogues as mentioned in Schedule A to the summary stand duly investigated and closed;
(iv) No further complaint or proceedings based upon such same set of allegations shall be entertained before any judicial statutory or administrative forum was to secure finality, obviate repetitive inquiries and investigation on issues concluded by the SIT;
(v) The respondent - Vantara and the concerned 8 authorities are directed to consider and implement the measures suggested by the SIT;
(vi) We may leave it open to the respondent -
Vantara to pursue its remedies in accordance with law for the deletion of any offending publication or for any action against those responsible for the misinformation or for actions for defamation or private complaints under the BNS, 2023 and if any such proceedings are initiated, they shall be dealt with on their own merits by the competent court/authority.
13. Before parting, we record our appreciation for the painstaking efforts of the SIT for conducting the inquiry with commendable, thoroughness and fearlessness and with all promptness. We direct that an honorarium of Rs.9,00,000/- each shall be paid to the three members of the SIT, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelmeswar (Former Judge of the Supreme Court), Mr. Justice R.S. Chauhan (Former Chief Justice, Uttarakhand and Talengana High Court), Mr. Hemant Nagrale (Former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai). We are not granting any remuneration to the fourth member, Mr. Anish Gupta (IRS) of the SIT as he is still a serving member. Nonetheless, this Court records its special appreciation for the work done by him 9 and for his valuable assistance. The Court also records its appreciation to the expert consulted by the SIT especially Mr. Maheep Gupta (Former PCCF) who assisted the SIT during its visit to the Vantara to assess the ground position. Let honorarium of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid to him also.
The Court also records its appreciation to the serving officers Mr. Mohit Jangid (IRS) and Mr. Abhishek Kumar (IFS) for their assistance rendered to the SIT. We note with approval the functioning of the High Powered Committee headed by Justice Deepak Verma(former Judge of the Supreme Court of India) and record our approval to its decisions.
The aforesaid honorarium shall be disbursed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
The Director General (Forests) shall ensure that the honorarium is paid to the concerned persons within two weeks from today.
14. Since, the petitions were disposed of on 25.08.2025 and was kept only for the purposes of submission of the report of the SIT, we direct that the record of these petitions be consigned to record.
15. The summary of the investigation, finding and recommendations of the SIT shall form part of this order.
1016. The Registry is directed not to weed out the report of the SIT with its annexures and the pen drive.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………………………...J. [PANKAJ MITHAL] …………………………………………………...J. [PRASANNA B. VARALE] NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 15, 2025.
SD
11
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.11 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 783/2025
C.R. JAYA SUKIN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 202801/2025 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION IA No. 202797/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 202798/2025 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON IA No. 195766/2025 - PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND ARGUE IN PERSON) WITH W.P.(C) No. 779/2025 (PIL-W) Date : 15-09-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE For Parties Mr. Raghavv Sabharwal, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Ayush Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Adv.
Dr. Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Petitioner-in-person Ms. Yashika Anand (Adv.) Ms. Divya Mishra (Adv.) Mr. Isaac Haiding (Adv.) Ms. Suresh Kumari (Adv.) Mr. Harish N Salve, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shardul Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Sayali Sawant, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Gandhi, Adv.
Mr. Anish Shahpurkar, Adv.
Mr. Manish Tiwari , AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K.M.nataraj, A.S.G. 12 Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Gaurang Bhusan, Adv.
Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv.
M/S. Lambat & Legiteam, AOR Intervenor-in-person, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv.
Ms. Hemadri Sharma, Adv.
Mr. M. K. Maroria, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. The operative part of the order is inter alia held as under:-
18. While accepting the report and the summary with the Schedule A thereof, we direct as under:
(i) The proceedings of the report of the SIT i.e., its report and annexures including the pen drive be re-sealed and kept confidential but complete copy of the same be furnished to the respondent – Vantara, may be electronic copy of the same for its own use and record subject to an undertaking that it shall not be disclosed to third parties;
(ii) The summary of the report which is exhaustive in itself as it does not carry comparable sensitiveness or attract the same degree of confidentiality but provides a faithful account of the conclusions reached by the SIT, shall not be treated as confidential;
(iii) In terms of the recommendations contained in the summary and having regard 13 to the exhaustive investigation conducted by the SIT aided by statutory enforcement agencies of the Central and the State, the complaints/petitions including newspaper reports, articles, catalogues as mentioned in Schedule A to the summary stand duly investigated and closed;
(iv) No further complaint or proceedings based upon such same set of allegations shall be entertained before any judicial statutory or administrative forum was to secure finality, obviate repetitive inquiries and investigation on issues concluded by the SIT;
(v) The respondent - Vantara and the
concerned authorities are directed to
consider and implement the measures
suggested by the SIT;
(vi) We may leave it open to the respondent -
Vantara to pursue its remedies in accordance with law for the deletion of any offending publication or for any action against those responsible for the misinformation or for actions for defamation or private complaints under the BNS, 2023 and if any such proceedings are initiated, they shall be dealt with on their own merits by the competent court/authority.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SNEHA DAS) (NIDHI MATHUR)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
1
SUMMARY
In Re: W.P.(C) No. 783/2025 & W.P.(C) No. 779/2025 (PIL-W), and Order dated 25-08-2025 passed therein Subject: Summary of the investigations, findings and recommendation of Special Investigation Team, concerning allegations against operations of Vantara / Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) and Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT).
1) Background This Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as ‘SIT’) constituted by virtue of common order dated 25.08.2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No. 783/2025 & W.P.(C) No. 779/2025 (PIL-W). By the said order, the Supreme Court of India called upon the SIT to examine various questions specified in paragraph 6 of the Order, it is made clear in paragraph 8 of the Order of the Supreme Court that the nature of the responsibility entrusted to the SIT is only to assist the Court as a Fact Finding Inquiry Body to enable the Court to pass any further order in the pending Writ Petitions mentioned above. In substance. The SIT has neither any authority nor responsibility to adjudicate upon any one of the issues involved in the abovementioned Writ Petitions.
2) Sources Considered by the SIT:
2.1 SIT dealt with various “complaints”, “articles”, “submissions”, “news reports”, and “stories” concerning Vantara, annexed to the petition or received post the Order dated 25.08.2025, from India as well as abroad”.
2.2 A list of the persons / organizations / entities, and their “complaints”, “articles”, “submissions”, “news reports”, and “stories”, which are considered and examined are referred in the Tables in Schedule ‘A’ hereto.2
2.3 SIT heard all those who availed personal audience physically as well as virtually. Some complainants chose not to avail any personal audience. A few journalist even refused cooperation. 2.4 It also dealt with and considered the earlier reports available on investigations / inspections conducted.
2.5 Services of independent experts and conservation organizations were also availed for such verification, inspection and examination. The SIT sought assistance Mr. Mohit Jangid Deputy Director ED (IRS) and chartered accountant, for considering the matter from the perspective of financial irregularities, Mr. Maheep Kumar, Former PCCF-WL (Maharashtra) and Mr. Abhishek Kumar (serving IFS formerly Zoo Director) for considering animal welfare and husbandary standards.
2.6 It also examined various functionaries of Vantara including the key management personnel as well as the purported donors.
2.7 The SIT undertook a comprehensive examination of oral and documentary evidence and regulatory / statutory records provided against or in defence by Vantara entities, and reviewed the same as per extant laws and judicial precedents.
2.8 SIT also interacted and deliberated with a wide slate of authorities in India, including:
i. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change ii. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying iii. The CITES Management Authority of India iv. The CITES Scientific Authority of India v. The Central Zoo Authority vi. Central Bureau of Investigation vii. Wildlife Crime Control Bureau viii. Customs, Department of Revenue ix. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence x. Enforcement Directorate xi. Collector, Jamnagar xii. Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar 3 xiii. Chief Wildlife Warden, State of Gujarat xiv. Chief Wildlife Warden, Delhi xv. Chief Wildlife Warden, State of Arunachal Pradesh xvi. Chief Wildlife Warden, State of Tripura xvii. Directorate General Foreign Trade xviii. Animal Quarantine and Control Services 2.9 Vantara has placed before the SIT communications from various foreign CITES Management Authorities with regard to the export permits issued by them:
i. CITES authorities in D.R. Congo,
ii. CITES authorities in UAE,
iii. CITES authorities in Indonesia
iv. CITES authorities in Syria
v. CITES authorities in Qatar
Independently, SIT also emailed the statutory CITES body of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to ascertain the veracity of CITES certificates issued by them. In this regard, DRC CITES Management Authority confirmed the certificates issued and highlighted that none of the transaction is commercial in nature.
2.10 Technical assessment and verification of legal acquisition of all exotic species and strict compliance with CITES, was thus conducted.
2.11 The suitability of the facility of Vantara to house and care for exotic species, including those listed in Appendix to CITES, was also examined through experts.
2.12 The site inspection was made, inter alia, to verify the animal husbandry standards, green spaces in the facility, veterinarian facilities, separation of the refinery and effects, and to verify the alleged claims of google earth imagery showing non-availability of requisite space for housing the animals.4
2.13 Both the abovementioned bodies were called upon to produce before the SIT all the relevant documents with respect to each of the animals in their custody. The relevant documents in the context of the inquiry being documents pertaining to the mode of the acquisition, the source from which there were acquired, the appropriate permission and clearances required for acquiring those animals.
2.14 ‘Vantara’ has placed before the SIT, 13 number of volumes containing the above information. All those volumes are filed as annexures with the report and are being forwarded to the Supreme Court of India along with this report.
2.15 All issues / aspects including animal husbandry, veterinary care, animal welfare, mortality and causes thereof, climate conditions, location near an industrial zone, creation of vanity or private collection, breeding, conservation programme and use of biodiversity resources, misutilisation if any of water and carbon credits, wildlife smuggling, and financial/anti-money-laundering aspects were examined.
2.16 Plethora of highlighted issues regarding (i) repatriation of an orangutan to Indonesia, (ii) transfer of an elephant named Madhuri, (iii) transfer of Spix’s Macaw from Germany to India, (iv) payment of money for purchase of animals transferred from Germany, South Africa, Czech Republic, Mexico, UAE and Venezuela (v) transfer of chimpanzees from a sanctuary in DC Congo, (vi) transfer of a mountain gorilla and (vii) association with persons of dubious background being associated with Vantara are holistically examined by SIT.
2.17 Technical assessment and verification of legal acquisition of all exotic species and strict compliance with CITES was conducted. The suitability of the facility to house and care of exotic species, including those listed in Appendix to CITES, was also examined in consultation with experts.
2.18 The SIT has undertaken a comprehensive examination of oral, documentary evidence including relevant regulatory records and also various judicial decisions in respect of the allegations and apprehensions, 5 and thoroughly investigated each of the issues in fact finding exercise in compliance with the Orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. Basis of allegations and material in support thereof:
3.1 Most of the allegations levelled either by Petitioner or Intervenor or journalist pivots on the following:-
(i) Media reports, both Indian and foreign.
(ii) Trade data available in public domain.
(iii) Opinions, complaints and articles if NGOs, conservationist.
4) Summary of findings and conclusions:
SIT summarises its findings in terms of the TOR enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subject Order:
4.1 Re: (a) acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants;
(b) compliance of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and rules for zoos made thereunder;
(c) 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;
4.1.1 The SIT has undertaken a comprehensive examination of oral, documentary evidence including relevant regulatory records and also various judicial decisions to conclude that –
(i) The acquisition of animals by Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre from within India from its inception have been carried out in regulatory compliances without any violation of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, Recognition of Zoo Rules 2009, guidelines of the Central Zoo Authority, Indian Penal Code / BNSS and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
(ii) The acquisition of 29,274 animals by Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and of 6,034 animals by Radhe Krishna 6 Temple Elephant Welfare Trust by way of imports from different countries from its inception have been carried out in regulatory compliances without any violation of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, Recognition of Zoo Rules 2009, guidelines of the Central Zoo Authority, CITES requirements, Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act, 1992, Customs Act, 1962, FEMA, 1999, Indian Penal Code / BNSS and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
(iii) Each of the imports has undergone multi-layered and multi- jurisdictional verifications. Each import is verified by the (i) Central Zoo Authority which is also the CITES Scientific Authority, (ii) Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, (iii) Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, (iv) CITES Management Authority of India, (v) the CITES Management authority of the country in which the exporting / donor entity is situated, (vi) Director General of Foreign Trade, (vii) Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, (viii) Animal Quarantine and Control Services and
(ix) Customs assessment.
(iv) None of the numerous authorities in India and abroad, support the allegations. Instead, these Authorities have expressed satisfaction on the issues of compliances and regulatory measures.
(v) The acquisition of 5 elephants by Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and 270 elephants by Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust from its inception have been carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and not in violation of any other law. The SIT has found, in one particular case concerning an elephant known as ‘Madhuri’ from Kolhapur, Maharashtra, that the acquisition was not sought by the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT). The transfer took place pursuant to an order of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the decision of the High-Powered Committee. The 7 said High Court Order was later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(vi) The manner of acquisition of 40,633 animals in all by Vantara entities - Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, is without any breach / violation of the (i) Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, (ii) Recognition of Zoo Rules 2009, (iii) Guidelines of the Central Zoo Authority, (iv) Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act, 1992, (v) Customs Act, 1962, (vii) FEMA, 1999, (viii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, (ix) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 or the (x) provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
(vii) The SIT finds that the mere numerical volume of imports is not, in itself, indicative of illegality. Articles citing incredulity expressed purportedly by some zoo directors of foreign zoos are unfounded; capacity is assessed and sanctioned by the Central Zoo Authority. So long as carrying capacity is duly certified and legal documents are in order, the number of acquisitions cannot be treated as a violation.
4.2 Re: “(d) compliance with standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care, standards of animal welfare, mortalities and causes thereof”-
4.2.1 The SIT, with the assistance of experts, concludes that the standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care, standards of animal welfare at Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, and Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust are fully compliant with the prescribed guidelines.
4.2.2 The experts have concluded and the SIT, based on its own visual inspection of the facilities, has no reason to believe otherwise that the standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care, standards of animal welfare at Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and 8 Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust are of the highest international standards. The facilities do not merely adhere to prevailing benchmarks, but also meet and, in several aspects, exceed CZA benchmarks in the field of zoological management and conservation.
4.2.3 In this context satellite / drone imagery relied upon in articles / complaints were ground-truthed against plans and on-site inspection, the allegation of concrete-dominant housing was found to be incorrect.
4.2.4 The SIT further records the outcome of the independent audit conducted by the Global Humane Society (GHS), the world’s largest and most respected certifier of animal welfare. A team of seven international experts, Dr. Manuel Walter Garcia Hartmann (Germany), Dr. Judy St. Leger (United States), Mr. Thomas Otten (United States), Ms. Pernilla Anna Catarina Mosesson (Sweden), Dr. Stephen Grey Stafford (United States), Mr. William Glenn Young Jr. (United States), and Ms. Jill Amanda Nizan (United States), undertook a nine-day on-site evaluation at Vantara in 2025, comprehensively reviewing veterinary care, nutrition, enrichment, habitat design, conservation breeding, emergency preparedness, and staff culture. The audit found that Vantara not only complied with but exceeded internationally recognised benchmarks. Elephants were observed rehabilitated through positive reinforcement and enrichment without any coercive instruments; big cats were maintained in enriched enclosures with natural diets and exercise systems; birds and primates displayed healthy behaviours consistent with species-typical needs; and staff culture consistently reflected the principle that ‘animals come first’. On this basis, GHS awarded Vantara the Global Humane Certified™ Seal of Approval, valid for a five-year term. The conferral of this certification is of particular significance: it independently validates that Vantara operates at the highest international standards of welfare and conservation, and positions it as a global exemplar of humane zoological practice.
4.2.5 Similarly assessments have been carried out by CITES Management authorities of different countries such as South Africa, Thailand etc. 9 4.2.6 Moreover there is a robust mechanism in place where the Central Zoo Authority periodically checks and inspects the Vantara facilities. Such inspections are also carried out by the Chief Wildlife Warden of the State of Gujarat.
4.2.7 The SIT has concluded that grant by Central Zoo Authority to GZRRC for a carrying capacity of 75,000 animals is in accordance with law.
4.2.8 The SIT, with the assistance of experts, concludes that the mortalities occurring within these facilities are attributable to natural biological causes, consistent with global zoological trends. They are not, in any manner, the result of deficiencies in husbandry, veterinary care, or welfare standards. Statistical analyses demonstrate alignment with the best-managed zoological institutions worldwide. The statutory procedures required to be followed under the rules in case of death of any animal in the possession of ‘Vantara’ are complied with.
4.3 Re: “(e) complaints regarding climatic conditions and allegations concerning location near an industrial zone;
4.3.1 Based on expert inputs, environmental data and inspection, the SIT finds that the climatic conditions at the site are very congenial for the species housed and do not adversely affect their health or welfare. The climatic history juxtaposed with mortality records does not reflect extremes or adverse trends. The Air Quality Index has been found to be within acceptable standards. Expert inputs record that modern habitat management systems, including temperature and humidity control, water and air quality measures, and vegetation planning, further ensures that the animals are maintained in safe, suitable and appropriate conditions.
4.3.2 The SIT also notes that the facilities are in close proximity to a large residential township, several villages and dense residential areas. Thus, the location is already inhabited by human populations without adverse health or ecological impacts. In this context, the allegation of 10 unsuitability due to proximity to an industrial zone is not borne out. The experts have highlighted that globally it is not unusual for zoological establishments to be situated within or near urbanized or industrialized areas. For example the Bronx Zoo in New York, the Tierpark Berlin in Germany, and the London Zoo in Regent’s Park. These Zoos operate successfully in the heart of major metropolitan centres. Moreover it is emphasized that several protected areas and reserves across the world are located alongside industrial activity such as Hluhluwe–iMfolozi Park in South Africa, which has long coexisted with nearby coal mining operations; the Doñana National Park in Spain, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, bordered by agricultural and industrial zones; the Everglades National Park in the United States which lies adjacent to urban areas and agricultural lands.
4.4 Re: (f) complaints regarding creation of a vanity or private collection, breeding, conservation programs and use of biodiversity resources;
4.4.1 The SIT has examined the allegation regarding the creation of a vanity or private collection, as well as allegations concerning breeding, conservation programmes, and the use of biodiversity resources. On a detailed review of facts, records, and expert material, the SIT finds no basis to support the allegation of a vanity collection. The operations of the GZRRC and the RKTEWT are conducted with the scale, professionalism, and governance of a large institutional enterprise. Both organisations maintain Memoranda of Understanding with several State Governments in India, with foreign countries, and with authorities in foreign jurisdictions. The institutions employ nearly 3,000 personnel, including a significant number of globally recognised experts and specialists in the fields of animal husbandry, veterinary science etc. The SIT observes that the existence of such extensive human resources, infrastructure, and output is inconsistent with the notion of a vanity or private collection.
4.4.2 With respect to conservation and breeding programmes, the SIT records 11 that the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC), which is the only institution undertaking structured conservation breeding initiatives, is operating fully in accordance with law. While these programmes are in their early stages, the SIT finds that they have been designed on sound scientific and conservation principles and merit adequate time for results to materialise on the ground. These efforts reflect the institution’s commitment not only to national objectives but also to globally coordinated species recovery initiatives. These steps clearly underscore its role as a serious conservation actor rather than a vanity enterprise.
4.4.3 In addition, the SIT notes that the Cheetah conservation and breeding programme at GZRRC has begun to show encouraging results with the birth of 17 Cheetahs. The above result makes the SIT believe that over a period of time, Vantara would contribute to India’s own cheetah rewilding objectives. Parallel initiatives are underway for the conservation breeding of clouded leopards and snow leopards, both of which are species of high ecological significance. Further, the programme for the Asiatic lion has been designed to strengthen the genetic base of this emblematic species; the structured breeding of vultures and gharials is also being carried out in line with established national recovery plans. Taken together, GZRRC has initiated conservation breeding programmes for 41 endangered species, reflecting both the breadth and seriousness of its commitment to ex-situ conservation, and long-term species survival.
4.4.4 The SIT has particularly inspected the issues as regards the Spix Macaw.
All export permits are found to be valid and all import permits are issued lawfully. The said birds are loaned to GZRRC for assisting ACTP’s conservation breeding program. GZRRC has committed that the objective is to rewild the range areas of the said Macaws. The SIT also notes that now GZRRC has established contact directly with the Brazilian authorities. Their deliberations are at a preliminary stage; GZRRC has expressed its commitment to directly engage with Brazil in a manner 12 assisting the program for rewilding. The SIT does not find any illegality in this context.
4.4.5 Vantara entities GZRRC/RKTEWT, operating lawfully and at international standards, have established a modern day “Noah’s Ark” that can (i) stabilize vulnerable / confiscated fauna, (ii) run evidence-based conservation breeding, and (iii) support reintroductions in cooperation with States and global partners.
4.4.6 The SIT also examined allegations under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. It finds that the provisions of the Act are not attracted to the activities of GZRRC and RKTEWT. The allegations of violation under this head are misconceived, lacking in substance, and do not merit serious consideration. The SIT is of the view that such claims are unfounded and do not require further inquiry. Neither the Petitioners nor Interveners could bring to the notice of the SIT any violation of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
4.5 (g) complaints regarding misutilisation of water and carbon credits:
4.5.1 The SIT has examined the complaints alleging misutilisation of water resources and carbon credits. On careful review of the records, expert inputs, and governing legal frameworks, SIT finds these allegations to be wholly baseless and lacking even the semblance of factual or legal foundation. The claims are not merely unfounded, but are hyperbolic.
They appear to have been advanced only to attract attention. After all, sensational allegations gain visibility.
4.5.2 The SIT is of the considered view that such complaints amount to a waste of institutional time and resources. They are no more than attempts at securing a “15 minutes of fame” for the persons making them. The SIT therefore rejects these allegations in their entirety as 13 frivolous and undeserving of further inquiry.
4.6 Re: (h) 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;
(i) complaints regarding issues of financial compliance, money laundering etc.
(j) complaints regarding any other subject, issue or matter germane to the allegations made in these Petitions.
4.6.1 The SIT called for information, documents and evidence from Petitioners, intervener, authors/media outlets whose articles are annexed to the Petition. The SIT also received several emails with diverse allegations which have been examined.
4.6.2 A list of complaints / News Article / stories / Information / submissions which were considered in detail are in Schedule A hereto.
4.6.3 On examination of the complaints / the news reports referred to therein/ and all accompanying references, the SIT finds that no credible, tangible or prosecutable evidence, material, or documentation has been produced in support of the allegations. Complainants and authors were afforded an opportunity to substantiate their claims. The limited material submitted was scrutinised but does not disclose the commission of any offence. One journalist expressly stated an unwillingness to cooperate with courts or authorities. Others furnished only news clippings and secondary articles which, in themselves, constitute hearsay. At no stage was any material produced that would qualify as material evidence for any further investigation, much less a prosecution or penal measure. The allegations rest wholly on conjecture and surmises on secondary reporting, and activist commentary, none of which meet even a prima facie threshold. Having considered the entirety of the material placed before it, the SIT 14 has not found anything that would prima facie disclose the commission of any offence to warrant further action. The complaints are, therefore, devoid of merit.
4.6.4 All other complaints, articles, videos, and related materials not specifically addressed have also been examined and are liable to be rejected in limine. They are found to be wholly baseless, devoid of even the semblance of factual or legal foundation, and verge of being imaginary. These appear to have been advanced merely to attract attention, on the premise that sensational allegations are more likely to gain visibility.
4.6.5 In the course of its inquiry, the SIT interacted with and obtained inputs from the Collector, Jamnagar; the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar; the Secretary (Forest), Government of Gujarat; the Chief Wildlife Wardens of Gujarat, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura; as well as the Central Bureau of Investigation; the Enforcement Directorate; the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau; the Director General (Forests), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence; the Department of Customs; the CITES Management Authority of India; the Animal Quarantine and Control Services; the Department of Animal Husbandry; and the Central Zoo Authority. Upon careful consideration of the allegations, the responses of these central and state authorities, and its own independent assessment, the SIT finds no merit in any of the allegations. No breach or violation has been found of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009; the guidelines of the Central Zoo Authority; the Foreign Trade (Regulation and Development) Act, 1992; the Customs Act, 1962; the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023; the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
4.6.6 None of the numerous Authorities in India and abroad, could support wild and speculative allegations. Rather they expressed satisfaction on the 15 issues of compliances and regulatory measures.
4.6.7 The physical inspection of the facilities and the animal welfare conditions also belied the speculative apprehensions.
4.6.8 Before accepting any animal and its acquisition, not only requisite due diligence is performed, but also Indemnity from ‘Donor Zoo’ / ‘Transferor’ is specifically insisted and kept in records.
4.6.9 The records of all communications/documentation regarding the acquisition are duly preserved and maintained by Vantara entities.
4.6.10 No irregular cash/crypto flows, and no engagement with smugglers or unlicensed intermediaries has been brought out. Therefore the SIT concludes that the allegation made are baseless. The acquisitions are neither vitiated nor tainted by fraud, misrepresentation, or contravention of law.
4.6.11 There is no credible, tangible and prosecutable material to prove any wrongful act concerning the possession or acquisition of animals by any ‘Donor Zoo’ of any foreign country. However, suspicions have been raised qua local commercial acquisition of animals by ‘Donor Zoo’ of foreign countries. Based thereon doubts are raised on permissibility of commercial acquisition by ‘Donor Zoo’ within domestic laws applicable in the respective foreign country.
4.6.12 In any case, it is verified that the exports by such ‘Donor Zoo’ to Vantara entities in India are under valid CITES permit and ‘non-commercial’ transaction permitted by concerned Government Agency under requisite permissions and clearances. Once the concerned foreign government agencies have allowed such exports and the import thereof is accepted all the concerned authorities in India, there is no reason for Vantara entities or the Indian Statutory Authorities either to go behind the permits / 16 clearances / certificates issued abroad, to investigate / ascertain the issue of possession and acquisition of “Donor Zoo” being compliant of domestic laws of the respective foreign country. The SIT is in complete agreement with the stand of Vantara that any further inquiry into this matter by SIT is neither permissible nor practicable.
4.6.13 Based on the contents of the affidavits filed before us by the management of donor zoos, where animals are procured by “Donor Zoo” in accordance with the law applicable to them and transferred to Vantara entities, once the export is under a valid export permit, such transfer or donation cannot be treated as a contravention of Indian law or CITES. Similarly, if an independent donor by himself / itself or along with an exporting / donor entity / zoo elects to fund release of animals from a facility, such as an overcrowded breeding farm, canned or trophy hunting in their own jurisdiction and effect a non-commercial zoo to zoo transfer, such activity / philanthropy, is lawful, when accompanied by valid export / import permits along with a host of permissions issued domestically, referred to above. It is pertinent that what is the law of that country would be a question of fact under international law.
4.6.14 Once an export permit exists and is issued by the competent authority, there exists a statutory presumption of validity under Indian law. Allegations of corruption or maladministration by CITES officials, or by other Authorities in exporting jurisdictions, even if assumed, cannot create liability for Vantara. The entities are entitled to rely upon permits and clearances issued by competent Authorities abroad; Indian law does not require or empower them to police the probity of foreign governments.
4.6.15 In a case where the exporting / donor entity / zoo export has been charged for any infraction or breach etc in its own jurisdiction or otherwise, such infraction cannot be imputed to Vantara entities if the import is backed by CITES export permits and the host of Indian clearances.
174.6.16 It is verified that every import into India by Vantara entities is under valid CITES permits for such international transfer of animals from ‘Zoo’ to ‘Zoo’, under a host of proper permissions, import licence, CITES compliance and customs clearances.
4.6.17 In so far as complaints regarding an orangutan and its repatriation to Indonesia are concerned, the SIT found that the said animal was not acquired by Vantara. But infact the same was transferred by the authorities to GZRRC for care pending the process of repatriation. The said animal was found to be affected by rhinovirus and is presently receiving treatment at Vantara. The authorities in India and Indonesia are in co-ordination for completing the process of repatriation. Vantara has extended its support and co-operation for the same.
4.6.18 The allegation that certain invoices cited by news reports are proof of payment is also an allegation without any basis in law. Each export is associated with an Invoice, which on examination is found to effectively be a CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) invoice. It merely indicates the cost of insurance and freight as is required to be described for any import (even ones’ own pet, much less an animal at a zoo) for customs purposes only.
4.6.19 The allegation of certain persons associated with exporting/donor zoos or entities such as Mr. Martin Guth and Mr. Nazeer Cajee are found to be without substance. Purported messaging ‘screenshots’ or ‘chats’ attributed to Mr. Martin Guth are non-probative, are without authentication. They do not implicate any Vantara entities. SIT notes that many others named and associated with Vantara who are not even charged let alone convicted of any wildlife related activity are portrayed as convicts. A very heavy emphasis has been laid by complainants and media on a past conviction of Mr. Martin Guth, decades ago, for actions having no connection with wildlife. It is worth remembering the adage that 18 ‘every saint has a past, every sinner – a future’. Such imaginative claims are based on suspicion whether an Indian facility can match such scales and standards based on white man’s prejudice against India. But at the end, there is no material, cogent or legally admissible, to treat Vantara as being responsible, directly or indirectly, of any breach or offence, criminal or otherwise.
4.6.20 In respect of D.R. Congo, the SIT reviewed the MoU, before-and-after photographic documentation, records of visits, the allegation of sourcing chimpanzees from a sanctuary etc. The records were found satisfactory and the allegation of sourcing animals from wild or sanctuaries such as chimpanzees were found to be baseless. There have been visits of officers to Vantara before finalisation of the transfer. There is no evidence found that any person named Oliver Trebaticky is involved in so far as Vantara is concerned. The records were found satisfactory, and the allegation of sourcing animals from wild or sanctuaries such as chimpanzees was found to be baseless. There exists an MOU between the authorities in Congo and Vantara which has several welfare and conservation aimed objects including upgrading the existing zoos in Congo, training and capacity building a zero management, which is already being undertaken.
4.6.21 In respect of UAE and particularly Kangaroo Animal Shelter and Capital Zoo, the SIT interacted with the management of Kangaroo Animal Shelter and Capital Zoo, received response from CITES management authority from UAE. SIT examined records and found that the allegations of alleged round tripping of animals, payments for animals etc is incorrect. The said entities, during the course of questioning, have denied being sellers of animals or traders of animals. They and have clearly stated that their transfers are “zoo to zoo transfers”, especially in so far as endangered species are concerned. The said entities, during the course of questioning, stated that as devout adherents of Islam, they consider it part of their religious duty and obligation to extend service towards animals, 19 including providing rescue and refuge for them. It was also mentioned that similarly religious persons extend assistance for the said purpose with the aim of providing relief to animals. In particular, the SIT obtained clarification from all concerned, particularly as regards the gorilla and records that the donor zoo Capital Zoo shall communicate with authorities governing it for the correction in the sub-species classification of the said gorilla.
4.6.22 In respect of allegations regarding exporting / donor entity / zoo and specimen from Venezuela, there is an MOU between the exporting / donor entity / zoo and Vantara in this regard and the transfers are clearly seen to be non-commercial zoo to zoo transfers. The said entities, during the course of questioning, also stated that one of the objectives, other then decongestion of zoos, is also to have a secondary stable and reserve population outside range habitats. The SIT has examined the exporting / donor entity / zoo export permits and related documents. It was found that the specimen were of captive bred, transfers were not commercial, and as such, the transfer does not breach any provision of law or CITES. In so far as allegations concerning Mr. Nazeer Cajee and Mystic Monkeys, South Africa is a jurisdiction where trophy hunting and associated transfers are lawful. It was explained that certain animals are secured from such facilities with the support of independent donors who purchase them to prevent their untimely death. This model of donor- funded rescue cannot be equated with commercial trade. Mr. Cajee has also stated that he was offered USD 150,000 by persons claiming to be from media etc, to share information against Vantara, while the SIT expresses no opinion on this aspect, similar allegations were made by other zoo owners which transferred animals to Vantara. Therefore, such statements which cast doubt on the credibility of such allegations.
4.6.23 In respect of allegations regarding exporting / donor entity / zoo and specimen from South Africa, the SIT has examined the exporting / donor 20 entity / zoo export permits and related documents and found that the specimen were of captive bred, the transfers were not commercial, and, as such, the transfer does not breach any provision of law, or CITES.
4.6.24 In respect of allegations trying to associate seizures at airports in India and other form of smuggling live or dead animals with Vantara are found to be wholly without any factual basis as confirmed by inputs from authorities.
4.6.25 In any event, there is no credible, tangible and admissible material to show complicity or knowledge of wrongful act, if any, done by ‘Donor Zoo’, to attract liability, criminal or otherwise, on Vantara entities. Presumption of Innocence is hallmark of criminal jurisprudence. It cannot be ignored in this regard merely on the basis of imaginative allegations.
4.6.26 Vantara had been repeatedly subjected to various litigations in different Courts in alleged public interest, with repetitive speculative allegations without any credible, tangible and substantial evidence, despite their lawful efforts without any commercialisation. The operations of GZRRC and RKTEWT emerge as legally compliant.
4.6.27 Here the SIT also notes that some of the complaints have gone to the extent of questioning the functioning of all departments of the government both Indian and foreign. The Complainants have also made allegations against the functioning of the court appointed High Powered Committee. They have equally castigated various High Courts by making contemptuous allegations regarding various proceedings and process followed by the Courts. Such allegations deserve not just complete rejection but deprecation.
5. Recommendations on the basis of findings:
In light of the fact finding exercise, the SIT submits for consideration of the 21 Hon’ble Court that –
(a) The “complaints”, and complaints based on “articles”, “submissions”, “news reports”, and “stories” which are considered and examined (referred in the Tables in Schedule ‘A’) hereto may please be considered for appropriate orders as has already been observed by this Hon’ble Court in paragraph 4 of the Order dated 25.08.2025;
(b) Appropriate orders as regards speculative allegations for sensationalism against authorities, courts and committee’s may please be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(c) The Hon’ble Court may also consider directing Vantara;
(i) expediting its zoological park portion with reasonable time, or alternatively / meanwhile, in consultation with the Central Zoo Authority and the Chief Wildlife Warden of the State of Gujarat, some portions of the rescue centres and elephant camp at GZRRC and RKTEWT may be opened for public access, without compromising on welfare requirements as such measures would enhance transparency, accountability, and public trust, mitigating perceptions of secrecy and thereby reinforcing confidence in the institutions’ work.
(ii) Pursue benchmarking and membership with World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), and Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), and collaborate with specialist groups for conservation planning, with the objective of fostering constructive engagement with established institutions and enhancing international confidence in the institutions work.22
(iii) Adopt a proactive public-information plan including briefings with accredited media and civil-society experts.
Dated this 11th day of September, 2025 Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Chairman Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan Hemant Nagrale 23 Anish Gupta, Member Secretary 24 Schedule A Item Category Date Complainant / Subject Matter No. Author / Publisher 1 Writ Petition 06.08.202 C.R Jaya Sukin Diverse allegations stated in 5 Memo of Writ Petition No. 783 of 2025 regarding acquisition of animals.
2 Writ Petition 09.08.202 Dev Sharma Diverse allegations stated in 5 Memo of Writ Petition No. 779 of 2025 regarding acquisition of animals, gene bank, use of carbon credits etc. 3 Intervention 12.08.202 S. Muralidharan Allegations regarding acquisition Application & 5 of Elephants in general.
Submissions / Complaint 31.08.202 Email citing circumstantial before SIT 5 evidence alleging office under PMLA and requesting SIT to call 02.09.202 for information from Customs, 5 DGFT, ED and Forest Department (Gujarat).
Allegation that petitions filed in court are by ‘Vantara benami’.
4 Intervention 08.09.202 Afroz Begum Allegations regarding acquisition Application & 5 of Elephant named ‘Hiragaj’ Submissions / Complaint before SIT 5 Third Party 06.03.202 Wildlife Animal Allegations that Vantara zoo in has Complaint 5 Protection amassed thousands of wild Forum of South animals from South Africa and Africa other countries under questionable (WAPFSA) CITES processes, questioning large-scale imports of lions, tigers, cheetahs, giraffes and more, raising concerns about legality, welfare, and conservation value.
6 Media 20.03.202 Published in Report titled ‘The Costs of Report 4 Himal South Reliance's Wildlife Ambitions’ Asia by M. Rajshekhar On Vantara project, tracing 25 elephant and exotic wildlife transfers, rapid accumulation of thousands of animals, legal and conservation controversies, and global CITES-linked sourcing from India, Africa, Latin America and beyond.
7 Media Report 14.07.202 Published in On government clearances for 1 Newslaundry by Reliance’s Jamnagar zoo to import Sourodipto endangered species from Mexico Sanyal Report and acquire black panthers from titled ‘Tigers Assam, raising questions on from Mexico, policy, conservation priorities, and panthers from private ownership Assam: The making of Reliance’s animal farm 8 Media Report 16.03.202 Published in On Vantara project, its scale of 4 The Straits elephants, big cats, herbivores Times by Rohini and reptiles, described as rescue Mohan Report yet criticised over sourcing, titled ‘Critics not legality, and billionaire-led wild about conservation private zoo set up by Indian billionaire Ambani’s youngest son’ 9 Media Report 31.01.202 Published in On 3,000-acre sanctuary, its 5 Animals 24-7 accumulation of thousands of by Merritt rescued animals, future breeding Clifton Report and public access plans, and titled ‘Vantara: debates over whether it is a zoo or Billionaire-built genuine sanctuary zoo/sanctuary has conservationist s in a dither’ 26 10 Media Report 05.04.202 Published in On concerns about elephant 4 Hindustan transfers, smuggling of exotic Times by animals, and activist allegations Jayashree directed at Vantara, urging stricter Nandi Report CITES and ownership scrutiny titled ‘Animal transfers need better scrutiny, activists tell Centre’ 11 Media Report 13.03.202 Published in On Vantara’s vast animal imports, 5 Süddeutsche veterinary facilities, and alleged Zeitung by role in fuelling global wildlife trade, Christoph drawing on import data of tens of Cadenbach, thousands of animals from dozens Sebastian Erb, of countries.
Lima Fritsche,
Mauritius Much
& David Pfeifer
Report titled
‘The billionaire
and his 181
lions’
12 Media
Report 27.06.202 Published in On the Spix’s Macaw
5 Süddeutsche reintroduction and Martin Guth’s
Zeitung by rise from German parrot breeder
Christoph to ACTP head, exploring his
Cadenbach, alleged enrichment from rare bird
Sebastian Erb trade, connections with criminal
& Mauritius networks, and purported role as
Much Report procurer for India’s Vantara zoo.
titled ‘The King
of Parrots’ Along with
RENCTAS - Summary of
Süddeutsche Zeitung’s
investigation into Vantara and
ACTP/Martin Guth, flagging
concerns over rare-bird transfers
and global wildlife trade links.
27
13 Media
Report 2025 Podcast by On journalist David Pfeifer’s visit
(Podcast) Süddeutsche to Vantara, threats from
Zeitung management, alleged intimidation
(Episode 6) and surveillance, investigation into
Report titled fake zoos in the UAE and Czech
‘The Wildlife animal dealers, and leaked
Dealer’ WhatsApp chats suggesting
Martin Guth’s involvement in
procuring primates, parrots and
other protected species for
Vantara
14 Media
Report 16.03.202 Published in On exports of 1,800+ Venezuelan
5 Armando.Info animals under CITES permits to
by the Reliance’s Vantara, involving
Investigative endangered species, invoices, and
Team Report links between Venezuela’s
titled ‘An oil Ministry of Ecosocialism and
maharajah Ambani’s project
receives
offerings of
Venezuelan
fauna’
15 Media
Report 16.08.202 Published by On Vantara’s mass imports of over
5 Pro Wildlife 35,000 animals of 730+ species
Report titled between 2023–24, including
‘Tens of primates, big cats and great apes,
thousands of sourced from Africa, Latin
wild animals for America, UAE and Germany,
private zoo in raising concerns on legality,
India’ CITES compliance, breeding
plans, welfare, and industrial
refinery setting
16 Media
Report 12.04.202 Published on On the controversial transfer of
5 Medium by endangered chimpanzees from
Daniel Stiles DRC to India’s Vantara,
Report titled allegations of misusing CITES
‘Dodgy deal permits and ‘captive-bred’ codes,
between DRC ICCN’s role, resistance from
wildlife sanctuaries, reports of corruption
28
authorities and and trafficking, legal threats by Vantara in Vantara, and international calls for India’ CITES scrutiny 17 Complaint / Information 28.08.202 By P. Raxter Allegations of removal of submitted to 5 specimen from natural habitats, SIT high volume, questioning need for rescue of animals, issuance of CITES permit using source code C where no captive breeding facilities exist. Allegations on purchase of monkeys, Galapagos land and fiji crested iguanas.
Preponderance of traders named
in adverse media reports. Import
of 32 chimpanzees re-exported
from Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait,
Cameroon etc.
18 Information
submitted to 29.08.202 Shubhobroto Request for recommendations
SIT 5 Ghosh strengthening rehabilitation of
elephants utilizing Vantara.
19 Complaint /
Information 28.08.202 Naresh Kadyan Allegations on unlawful transfers
submitted to 5 of elephants to Vantara.
SIT
20 Complaint /
Information 02.09.202 Trishala Ashok Allegations with respect to transfer
submitted to 5 of chimpanzees from DC Congo
SIT as reported by Ofir Drori of Eagle
Enforcement, network NGO.
21 Media
Report and 05.09.202 Mahesh Deka Editor of online news agency
Complaint / 5 Mahesh Deka’s submissions
Information contained allegations on transfer
submitted to of elephants from north east, the
SIT transfer of seized animals from
Assam zoo to Vantara’s facility,
lack of legal clearances,
29
questionable rescue claims, wild
origins, suspicious origins,
unsuitable conditions and animal
welfare issues at Vantara, financial
irregularities and commercial
exploitation.
22 Complaint /
Information 04.09.202 Sharath R Babu Allegation regarding one Mr. Anil submitted to 5 Garg being an advisor to Vantara, SIT unlawful transfer of elephants to Japan etc. 07.09.202 Allegation that none of Vantara’s 5 animal imports entered India through the designated entry points under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, despite over a thousand animals being imported, and further claiming personal knowledge through interactions with transporters and customs officials about irregular wildlife shipments, raising it as purported vital evidence of possible illegality and enforcement lapses.
23 Complaint / Information 05.09.202 M. Rajshekhar Journalist of article mentioned at submitted to 5 Item No. 6 above with additional SIT information in form of another news report dated 31.08.2025 regarding ex-wildlife warden of Uttarakhand permitting transfer of 4 elephants.
24 Complaint / Information 05.09.202 Debi Goenka Allegations regarding location, submitted to 5 permissibility of activity, handling SIT Conservation of animals by visitors, employment Action Trust of former government officers, validity of permissions, lack of transparency, bio security risk, and request to SIT to engage with 30 several departments and peruse their records.
25 Complaint / Information 01.09.202 Unnamed Allegation that Slovak national submitted to 5 complaint Oliver Trebaticky in collusion with SIT regarding DRC officers has engaged in animals from smuggling or commercial trade.
DC Congo
26 Complaint /
Information 05.09.202 Klaus Meyer Allegation that Vantara is a private
submitted to 5 breeding centre and referencing
SIT discussions on online German
speaking forums, lack of public
oversight and independent
regulation etc and that welfare
standards are opaque. Allegation
with reference to zoochat
community with google earth and
satellite imagery.
27 Complaint /
Information 08.09.202 Bheem Bansal Allegation that Vantara was
submitted to 5 involved for animals / gibbons
SIT (dead) seized at Banglore Airport.
28 Complaint /
Information 10.09.202 Marta Kowalska Allegation that there may be high submitted to 5 mortalities, cruelty, mutiliation of SIT animals, use of animals for entertainment purpose etc and request to question vets.
29 Complaint / Information 02.09.202 Dhiraj Mirajkar Allegation of illegal possession of submitted to 5 baby orangutan at Vantara.
SIT 30 Complaint / Information 06.09.202 Ram Singh Allegations highlighting delays in submitted to 5 Vantara’s facility construction, with SIT animals including aquatic species, penguins, and apes housed in temporary, inadequate enclosures, 31 raising urgent welfare concerns.” 31 Complaint / Information 06.09.202 Maaten Vos Alleging that Vantara zoo is submitted to 5 illegally acquiring animals and SIT failing to pay pet traders and suppliers, with claims of coercion, bypassing legal channels, and procurement of exotic species from local markets—raising concerns of animal welfare violations, financial misconduct, and the need for urgent investigation.
32 News Report
12.04.202 Aathira Published in The Wire by Report
5 Perinchery – titled ‘Congo Chimps at India’s
The Wire Vantara: A Case of Capture From
the Wild?’
On allegations that nine
chimpanzees imported by Vantara
from the Democratic Republic of
Congo were wild-caught (despite
being labelled “captive-bred”),
highlighting potential misuse of
code-C CITES permits, links with
Kinshasa Zoo irregularities, and
broader concerns about wildlife
trafficking under the guise of
rescue.
33 News Report
10.04.202 Published in Report titled ‘How DRC’s
5 Africa endangered chimpanzees end up
Geographic by in a billionaire’s Indian zoo’ Daniel Stiles On the alleged transfer of wild-
caught chimpanzees from the DRC to India’s Vantara under falsified “captive-bred” CITES permits, with Ofir Drori of EAGLE stating that there are “no great ape breeding facilities in Africa,” 32 implying the origin must be wild, and linking the transfers to Vantara/GZRRC.
34 News Report 01.09.202 Published in Report titled “Exposed: The big 5 Currency News business of selling South Africa’s by Daniel Stiles big cats to Ambani’s Indian mega-
zoo.
35 Complaint /
Information 09.2025 Four Paws & On allegations of transfer of
submitted to Other NGOs. animals and welfare conditions
SIT along with similar complaints also
addressed to CITES Secretariat.
36 Complaint /
Information 09.09.202 Raju Shetty Complaint about transfer of
submitted to 5 Elephant Madhuri from Kolhapur
SIT to Vantara.