On September 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India recorded that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the functioning of the Vantara Centre in Jamnagar, Gujarat has submitted its findings in a sealed cover. The matter, titled CR Jaya Sukin v. Union of India, raises questions of wildlife protection, financial compliance, and transparency in judicial processes.
This article explains the background of the case, the constitution of the SIT, the scope of its inquiry, the issue of sealed cover submissions, and the broader implications for animal welfare, environmental compliance, and judicial accountability.
Background of the Vantara Inquiry
Vantara, founded by Anant Mukesh Ambani under the Reliance Foundation, is an ambitious animal rescue, care, and rehabilitation initiative inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2024. It was promoted as one of the largest facilities of its kind, aimed at the conservation and welfare of rescued animals, especially elephants.
However, petitions were filed before the Supreme Court raising serious allegations:
- Unlawful procurement of animals from India and abroad.
- Mistreatment in captivity and failure to comply with animal welfare norms.
- Financial irregularities including alleged money laundering and misuse of resources.
- Ecological concerns such as misuse of water and alleged exploitation of carbon credits.
- Legal violations under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, CITES, and other domestic and international laws.
In response, the Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on August 25, 2025, under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar, to probe into these allegations.
Composition of the SIT
The SIT includes eminent legal and administrative figures:
- Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Former Supreme Court Judge (Chairperson)
- Justice Raghavendra Chauhan, Former Chief Justice of Uttarakhand and Telangana High Courts
- Hemant Nagrale, Former Mumbai Police Commissioner
- Anish Gupta, Indian Revenue Service (IRS) Officer
The SIT was supported by 16 different agencies including wildlife, forest, and financial authorities. Officials from forest and wildlife departments were also summoned to explain transfers of elephants and other animals to Jamnagar.
Scope of the SIT Inquiry
The Supreme Court tasked the SIT to investigate a wide range of issues, including:
- Acquisition of Animals
- Source and legality of acquisition of elephants and other animals from India and abroad.
- Compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
- Compliance with National and International Laws
- Adherence to rules for zoos framed under Indian law.
- Compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES).
- Verification of import/export procedures for live animals.
- Animal Welfare Standards
- Housing, veterinary care, and nutrition of animals.
- Standards of animal husbandry and welfare.
- Inquiry into animal mortalities and causes.
- Environmental and Ecological Concerns
- Suitability of climatic conditions in Jamnagar for certain species.
- Location-related concerns, particularly its proximity to an industrial zone.
- Allegations of water misuse and exploitation of carbon credits.
- Financial and Administrative Compliance
- Allegations of financial irregularities and money laundering.
- Compliance with accounting and regulatory standards.
- Investigation into use of biodiversity resources.
- Other Allegations
- Vanity collection or private use of rescued animals.
- Breeding programs and conservation initiatives.
- Alleged wildlife smuggling and illegal trade.
The SIT spent three days at Vantara, conducting physical inspections and circulating questionnaires about financial transactions, inter-state transfers, and compliance with international standards.
Submission of the Report in Sealed Cover
The SIT submitted its report, annexures, and supporting material in a pen drive to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover on September 12, 2025. The Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale recorded the submission and directed that it be taken on record.
This development, however, has sparked discussions on the use of sealed covers in judicial proceedings.
Sealed Covers and the Supreme Court: A Debate
The use of sealed cover submissions in the Supreme Court has been a subject of controversy. Sealed covers are intended to protect sensitive material, national security interests, or confidential information. However, critics argue that sealed covers undermine the principle of open justice, as parties and the public may be denied access to crucial information.
In past cases, including those related to electoral bonds, Pegasus surveillance allegations, and Rafale deal scrutiny, the use of sealed covers has been questioned. Legal scholars argue that sealed covers can limit transparency, deny fair hearing to parties, and reduce judicial accountability.
In the Vantara inquiry, the sealed cover approach may have been adopted due to:
- Sensitive details about animal procurement from foreign sources.
- Confidential financial transactions.
- Protection of ongoing inquiries involving multiple agencies.
Yet, the larger question remains: how much of the report will eventually be disclosed to the petitioners and the public?
Implications of the Inquiry
- For Animal Welfare in India
The case underscores the need for stricter enforcement of wildlife laws and international treaties. If irregularities are proven, it may set new standards for private conservation projects in India. - For Environmental Governance
Issues such as water usage, carbon credits, and biodiversity resources highlight the intersection of ecology and corporate initiatives. - For Judicial Transparency
The sealed cover method raises concerns about transparency in public interest litigations. The Court may face pressure to balance confidentiality with the public’s right to know. - For Reliance Foundation and Private Initiatives
The outcome of this inquiry could impact the credibility of Vantara and other private sector initiatives in conservation. It will also shape regulatory oversight for similar projects.
Conclusion
The Vantara SIT inquiry represents a complex intersection of animal welfare, environmental regulation, corporate responsibility, and judicial accountability. By directing a multi-agency probe under the leadership of senior jurists and administrators, the Supreme Court has signaled its seriousness in addressing allegations of illegal procurement, financial irregularities, and ecological violations.
At the same time, the submission of the SIT’s findings in a sealed cover raises important questions about transparency and open justice. As the Court proceeds with the matter, the public will watch closely to see whether the balance between confidentiality and accountability is maintained.
Ultimately, the case will have long-term consequences for wildlife conservation laws, private conservation initiatives, and judicial practices in India.
Also Read
Supreme Court Directs Bail Pleas to Be Decided Within Two Months: A Milestone for Personal Liberty
