Supreme Court to think about SIT report on Vantara on September 15

The Supreme Court is scheduled on September 15 to think about a confidential report submitted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) chaired by former prime courtroom decide Justice J. Chelameswar, which was tasked to conduct an “impartial factual appraisal” of complaints and allegations of violations raised in opposition to Vantara, a zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre conceptualised by Anant Ambani at Jamnagar in Gujarat.

A Bench headed by Justice Pankaj Mithal had taken on board the SIT report, submitted in a sealed cowl with annexures and a pen drive, on September 12.

The courtroom’s resolution on August 25 to represent a SIT was primarily based on two petitions alleging the involvement of Vantara within the illegal acquisition of animals from India and overseas, mistreatment of animals in captivity, monetary irregularities, cash laundering, and associated fees.

The Bench had determined to kind its personal SIT to conduct an impartial enquiry after noting that the petitions had been largely primarily based on media stories and rumour.

Besides Justice Chelameswar, the members of the SIT included Justice Raghavendra Chauhan, former Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand and Telangana High Courts; Hemant Nagrale, IPS (former Mumbai Police Commissioner); and Anish Gupta, IRS, Additional Commissioner, Customs.

The SIT was requested to look at the acquisition of animals from India and overseas, significantly elephants; compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and guidelines for zoos; compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and import/export legal guidelines regarding stay animals; adherence to requirements of animal husbandry and veterinary care, animal-welfare norms, and causes of mortalities; and complaints concerning weather conditions and allegations concerning the location of Vantara close to an industrial zone.

The particular workforce was additionally directed to take note of grievances concerning the “creation of an arrogance or personal assortment, breeding, conservation programmes and use of biodiversity sources, misutilisation of water and carbon credit, breach of legal guidelines of commerce in animals or animal articles, wildlife smuggling and cash laundering.”