Supreme Court Constitutes Justice Chelameswar-Led SIT to Probe Vantara Centre Allegations

On 25 August 2025, the Supreme Court of India constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar to inquire into multiple allegations surrounding the Vantara Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre at Jamnagar, Gujarat.

The petitions before the Court — filed by NGOs and private litigants and grounded largely in media reports — alleged “unlawful acquisition of animals from India and abroad, mistreatment of animals in captivity, financial irregularities and money-laundering,” and possible contraventions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and international obligations under CITES.

The Court instructed the SIT to complete its fact-finding and file a report by 12 September 2025. (LawBeat; Business Standard; Reuters.)

What the Court ordered: a focused fact-finding mandate

The order is procedural but high-stakes. Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the public interest litigations, the Supreme Court directed an independent fact-finding exercise — led by a retired apex-court judge and comprising experienced former police and revenue officials — to test factual assertions that, in the Court’s words, were “based exclusively on news and stories appearing in the newspapers, social media and diverse complaints by non-Governmental organizations and Wild Life Organizations.”

The directive narrows the immediate judicial role to supervision and fact-gathering; the resulting SIT report will inform subsequent judicial steps, including possible contempt, criminal or regulatory proceedings. (The Wire; LawBeat.)

Statutory and international law touchpoints: WLPA and CITES

The allegations raise potential violations under established legal frameworks:

• Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA). The Act sets the domestic legal architecture for protection, acquisition, transport and custody of wild animals and prescribes penalties for illegal trade and possession of scheduled species. Its long title — “An Act to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto” — underscores the Act’s conservation purpose and regulatory reach. Unlawful interstate or international transfer, or keeping endangered species without requisite permissions, would engage WLPA provisions and attract both penal consequences and administrative sanctions.

• CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Any cross-border import or export of species protected under CITES obliges compliance with export/import permits and documentary checks. Non-compliance implicates international obligations and may trigger coordinated enforcement with foreign authorities.

• Financial laws and PMLA implications . Allegations of financial irregularities and money-laundering, if substantiated, could trigger parallel triggers under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) and Income-Tax statutes. The SIT’s mandate to explore financial irregularities means investigators will likely examine funding flows, sources of acquisition finance, and corporate structures used in the centre’s operations.

Why the SIT route matters: credibility, speed and remedies

A Court-constituted SIT led by a former Supreme Court judge is a potent investigatory instrument. It sits between two poles:

1. Judicial restraint against assuming investigative functions traditionally performed by executive agencies, and

2. The Court’s constitutional duty is to ensure the enforcement of statutory and fundamental rights where institutional failures are alleged.

The choice of a retired apex judge as chair signals the Court’s intention to prioritise independence and public confidence in the inquiry.

Practically, the SIT can deliver:

• A detailed factual matrix that the Court can use to frame legal questions (e.g., whether WLPA or CITES violations occurred);

• Recommendations for criminal or administrative referrals (to police, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Central Zoo Authority, or tax and anti-money-laundering agencies); and

• Contemporaneous preservation measures (if the SIT finds risk to animals or evidence), which courts can convert into interim orders.

Precedent and jurisprudential contours

The Supreme Court has previously intervened in matters touching wildlife, environmental governance and institutional neglect. While courts historically defer to specialised regulatory agencies (for example, the Central Zoo Authority or state wildlife authorities), the judiciary will step in where evidence suggests regulatory inaction or institutional capture.

The present order follows that template: the Court did not posit guilt but authorised an independent inquiry because the petitions alleged systemic regulatory failure.

The SIT path also minimises premature judicial conclusions while preserving litigants’ access to remedies: once fact-finding is complete, the Court may convert findings into enforcement orders or direct criminal investigation if warranted. This calibrated approach adheres to the separation of powers while safeguarding the enforcement of environmental and wildlife statutes.

Implications for conservation projects and corporate accountability

The Vantara matter sits at the intersection of conservation policy, philanthropy and corporate governance. Several implications stand out:

• Regulatory compliance is non-negotiable. Private conservation projects that house protected species must strictly comply with WLPA, CITES and Central Zoo Authority norms. Administrative clearances, transport permits and scientific justifications will likely be scrutinised.

• Corporate visibility increases legal risk . Where philanthropic or corporate-sponsored projects eclipse state functions, corporate counsel must anticipate enhanced regulatory and reputational exposure — including activist litigation and media scrutiny that can precipitate judicial probes.

• Financial transparency matters. Allegations of financial irregularities bring corporate governance norms and anti-money-laundering obligations into focus. Corporations operating conservation projects should ensure audit trails, arms-length agreements for animal acquisition and transparent donor reporting.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s appointment of a Justice Chelameswar-led SIT to probe the Vantara allegations is an assertive exercise of judicial supervision aimed at clarifying disputed facts and, if necessary, catalysing enforcement.

The order underscores that private conservation initiatives, however well-funded, operate within a strict statutory and international framework.