The Supreme Court on Monday said that the acquisition of animals by Vantara, the wildlife rescue centre run by Reliance Foundation in Gujarat’s Jamnagar, was prima facie within the regulatory mechanism, Live Law reported.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale said that the Special Investigation Team found no foul play.

The team was constituted by the court on August 25 to look into whether the centre complied with the 1972 Wildlife Protection Act and zoo rules, and statutes governing the acquisition of animals from India and abroad, particularly elephants.

The action had come while the court was hearing two petitions filed following the controversy over shifting an ailing elephant from a temple in Kolhapur to Vantara in July. The team had been directed to submit its report by September 12.

The investigating team, headed by retired Justice J Chelameswar, submitted the report to the court last week, the Hindustan Times reported. According to the report, the team was satisfied with the compliance and regulatory measures followed by Vantara.

During the hearing on Monday, the bench said: “We have gone through the summary of the report. It notes erudite regulatory compliance. It notes that stakeholders also presented views. Authorities have expressed satisfaction with the regulatory compliance.”

The court also said that the report will be made part of the order.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocate Harish Salve, representing Vantara, objected to this, saying that a “certain narrative” was being circulated and publishing the report would allow more speculation than necessary, Live Law reported.

Salve said that everything at Vantara was made available for the investigating team to look through.

“There are certain propriety concerns as to how the animals are being looked after, how do you keep these animals,” Live Law quoted the advocate as saying. “Large moneys have been spent with experts to develop these, there is some degree of commercial confidentiality.”

He added: “…this is something which is the rival of the world, this kind of facility. There is narrative which is trying to bring this down. If the whole record is put, we do npt want the rest of the world to know because if tomorrow, in [The] New York Times there is another article or you will see in Time Magazine another article.”

In response, the bench said that the report would not be made part of the order.

“We will not permit anyone to raise such objections,” Live Law quoted Mithal as saying. “We are satisfied we the report of the committee…Whatever they have submitted, we will go by that. And all authorities will be free to take actions based on recommendations and suggestions. You are also bound, we will not permit anyone to raise questions again and again.”

Referring to the transfer of the ailing elephant from the temple in Kolhapur to Vantara in July, the bench said it will not go into it. No unnecessary allegation must be made now that an independent body has found no foul play, the court added.

“We should not unnecessarily rake up all these matters and raise hue and cry for the sake of that,” Live Law quoted Mithal as saying. “Allow certain good things to happen to the country. We should be happy about all these good things.”

He asked what the issue was if the acquisition of an elephant was done according to the law.

“See, if somebody wants to acquire an elephant and he takes care of the provisions of law and acquires, what is wrong in it?” the judge said. “You maintain your elephants in the temple and use is for procession, use for [Hindu festival] Dussehra. In Mysore, you do it.”

Allegations against Vantara

The first petition filed against Vantara had demanded that a monitoring committee be set up to look into alleged irregularities at the rescue centre, all captive elephants be returned to their owners and all wild animals at the facility be released back to the wild.

The second petition had challenged the transfer of the ailing elephant named Madhuri or Madhavi to Vantara.

For more than 30 years, the elephant had been at a Jain monastery, named the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sansthan Mutt, in Kolhapur’s Nandani village.

In July, the Bombay High Court ordered Madhuri’s rehabilitation to Vantara, and the Supreme Court subsequently upheld the order. The elephant was moved to the Reliance Foundation-run centre in Gujarat on July 30, sparking protests in Kolhapur.

On August 5, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had said that the state government will file a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking Madhuri’s return to Kolhapur. The chief minister added that Vantara had agreed to join the plea before the Supreme Court.

During the hearing on August 25, the Supreme Court directed the SIT to examine if Vantara complied with the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna, import and export laws for live animals, animal husbandry and veterinary standards, among others.

It had also ordered the SIT to conduct a “physical verification and inspection” of Vantara, making the secretary of the Gujarat forest department responsible for ensuring full cooperation.

In a statement responding to the formation of the SIT, Vantara had said that it was committed to “transparency, compassion and full compliance with the law”.

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting