The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale, acted upon two Public Interest Litigations (PILs). These were filed by lawyer C R Jaya Sukin and another petitioner, Dev Sharma. The petitions were triggered by the shifting of an elephant named Mahadevi from a temple in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, to Vantara in July, which ignited questions around animal transfer, ownership rights, and the ethicality of moving elephants from their traditional habitats or religious premises to corporate-led wildlife centres.
The Court’s directive comes amid growing concerns over whether acquisitions of animals for private or foundation-backed zoos comply with national laws and international conventions. By constituting an SIT, the apex court has signalled that accountability and transparency in wildlife management cannot be compromised, no matter how noble the stated intentions may be.
Composition of the SIT
The SIT reflects a balanced mix of judicial, policing, and customs expertise. It will be headed by Justice J Chelameswar, one of the most respected retired judges of the Supreme Court. The panel will also include:
Justice Raghavendra Chauhan, former Chief Justice of the High Courts of Uttarakhand and TelanganaAnish Gupta, Additional Commissioner, Customs.
2. Acquisition of animals – How animals, especially elephants, were brought to Vantara, whether from within India or abroad. Were the proper legal processes followed?
3. Compliance with wildlife laws – Whether Vantara operates within the ambit of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, India’s cornerstone legislation on biodiversity conservation.
4. Zoo rules and permissions – Whether Reliance Foundation secured appropriate permissions under rules governing zoos and animal care facilities in the country.
5. Transparency in animal transfers – Whether animals such as Mahadevi the elephant were shifted voluntarily, legally, and in compliance with welfare standards.
Vantara, a flagship project of Reliance Foundation, has been promoted as one of the largest animal rescue, care, and rehabilitation centres in the world. Located in Jamnagar, Gujarat, it is said to house elephants, big cats, exotic birds, and other species, with the stated mission of giving rescued animals a safe and natural environment.
Reliance Foundation has claimed that Vantara follows global standards of care and has invested heavily in veterinary infrastructure, trained staff, and facilities aimed at animal welfare. The organisation has also argued that the animals brought there, including elephants from temples or circuses, are given a better quality of life.
However, critics argue that corporate-backed wildlife projects often blur the line between conservation and private ownership, raising concerns of compliance, ethicality, and transparency.
The Case of Elephant Mahadevi
The controversy around Vantara intensified after the shifting of Mahadevi, an elephant from a temple in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Animal rights activists alleged that the elephant was moved without proper permissions, while supporters argued that she was being rescued from unsuitable conditions.
This case highlights a larger issue – elephants in India are often kept in temples, circuses, or private ownership, and their transfer to rehabilitation centres has frequently sparked disputes between traditional custodians, activists, and state authorities. The Supreme Court’s intervention suggests that such matters cannot be brushed aside as local issues but require national-level scrutiny.
Wider Implications for Wildlife Protection in India
1. The SIT probe into Vantara is not just about one centre or one elephant. It has wider implications for wildlife protection in India.2. Strengthening the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – The case will test the robustness of the law and whether enforcement agencies can keep pace with large, privately funded initiatives.
3. Corporate role in conservation – While private investment in animal rescue and rehabilitation can supplement government efforts, the probe may set benchmarks for accountability and transparency in such ventures.
4. Animal rights vs cultural traditions – The Mahadevi case symbolises the larger clash between cultural practices (temple elephants) and modern conservation ethics, a debate that India has grappled with for decades.
5. Global scrutiny – India is a signatory to several international conventions on wildlife protection. How this case unfolds will be closely watched worldwide as it touches upon trade, acquisition, and welfare of protected species.
- The SIT will have to work quickly, as the Supreme Court has given it less than a month to submit its report. Its findings could have far-reaching consequences:
- Vantara is found compliant, it could strengthen Reliance Foundation’s position as a leader in corporate-driven conservation.
- If irregularities are found, the centre may face penalties, restrictions, or restructuring, and the government may be compelled to tighten regulatory frameworks for wildlife care facilities.
- For the judiciary, this case may become a precedent in determining the scope of private participation in wildlife rehabilitation.
The Supreme Court’s order to investigate Reliance Foundation’s Vantara is a defining moment for India’s conservation landscape. At stake is not just the credibility of one institution but the larger question of how wildlife is protected, managed, and rehabilitated in the country. The SIT’s findings will determine whether India strikes the right balance between tradition, corporate participation, and the rule of law in protecting its most vulnerable species.
As the deadline of 12 September approaches, all eyes will be on the SIT’s report. For now, the case stands as a reminder that wildlife protection cannot be left to claims and assurances alone – it requires strict legal compliance, transparency, and accountability.
No comments:
Post a Comment