SC-appointed SIT gives clean chit to Vantara, says compliance satisfactory

The Supreme Court on Monday noted that a special investigation team (SIT) it appointed to look into the affairs of Vantara had given a clean chit to the zoological rescue and rehabilitation centre in Gujarat's Jamnagar.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale took the SIT's report on record and observed the probe team's satisfaction on the compliance and regulatory measures in Vantara.

The top court on August 25 constituted a four-member SIT headed by a former apex court judge while hearing two PILs alleging irregularities against Vantara on the basis of reports in the media and social media besides complaints from NGOs and wildlife organisations.

The probe panel comprised former top court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar, former high court chief judge Justice Raghavendra Chauhan, former Mumbai police commissioner Hemant Nagrale and former Indian Revenue Service officer Anish Gupta.

The apex court on Monday perused the report, which the SIT submitted on September 12, and said it would pass a detailed order once it had examined the report.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Gujarat, and Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Vantara, however, objected to the bench's observation to incorporate the details of the SIT report in its order.

Salve claimed when members of the apex court-appointed panel visited Vantara, the entire staff of the centre was at their disposal besides everything being shown to them.

''There are certain propriety concerns as to how the animals are being looked after; how do you keep these animals. Large moneys have been spent with experts to develop these, there is some degree of commercial confidentiality,'' he said.

Salve added, ''This is something which is the rival of the world; this kind of facility. There is a narrative which is trying to bring this down. If the whole record is put, we don't want the rest of the world to know because if tomorrow, in New York Times there is another article or you will see in Times Magazine another article (sic).'' The bench said it won't allow any more contentions and close the matter.

''We will not permit anyone to raise such objections...We are satisfied with the report of the committee.. Now, we have a report of an independent committee; they have gone through everything; they have taken help of experts. Whatever they have submitted, we will go by that. And all authorities will be free to take actions based on recommendations and suggestions,'' the bench said.

When a lawyer sought permission to intervene in the matter saying his plea was related to a temple elephant being brought to Vantara, the bench refused to entertain it.

''See, there are certain things we probably feel are the pride of this country. We should not unnecessarily rake up all these matters and raise hue and cry for the sake of that. Allow certain good things to happen to the country,'' the bench said.

The top court continued, ''We should be happy about all these good things...If the acquisition of an elephant is in accordance with the law, what is the difficulty? See, if somebody wants to acquire an elephant and he takes care of the provisions of law and acquires, what is wrong in it?'' On August 25, the top court ordered the SIT to inquire into the allegations of non-compliance of laws in acquiring animals locally and from abroad, particularly elephants, against Vantara.

The order, however, did not express any opinion on the matter.

The SIT was directed to examine and submit its report on the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants, compliance with the Wild Life (Protection) Act and rules for zoos made thereunder, the International Convention on Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna, the import-export laws and other statutory requirements concerning the import and export of live animals.

The SIT was further ordered to examine the compliance when it came to standards of animal husbandry, veterinary care, standards of animal welfare, mortalities and causes, complaints regarding climatic conditions and allegations concerning location near an industrial zone, complaints regarding the creation of a vanity or private collection, breeding, conservation programmes and use of biodiversity resources.

The panel was also asked to look into the aspects of financial compliance, money laundering and regarding any other subject, issue or matter germane to the allegations made in the petitions.

On August 14, the top court said the plea filed by petitioner C R Jaya Sukin seeking to get a monitoring committee formed to return the captive elephants in Vantara to their owners was ''completely vague''.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)