C.R. Jaya Sukin (Petitioners) v. Union of India & Ors. (Respondents)

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 783/2025 & 779/2025

(PANKAJ MITHAL and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ)

The Supreme Court of India, in the exercise of its civil original jurisdiction, considered two public interest writ petitions made against the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Trust (both referred to as respondent–Vantara). The petitions had raised serious charges of large-scale irregularities, such as illicit acquisition and smuggling of animals, wildlife trafficking, financial dishonesty, and contravention of Indian as well as international environmental and wildlife protection acts.

The petitions, one pleaded by the petitioner-in-person and the other by senior counsel Mr. Harish Salve on behalf of the respondents, challenged serious questions regarding supposed illegality in the setup and operations of Vantara. The allegations were that animals were being obtained by illegal means, that smuggling and money laundering activities were being conducted under cover of conservation efforts, and that there was contravention of several statutory provisions. Additional allegations on matters of animal welfare, conservation norms, climatic inappropriateness for some species, financial improprieties, and probable violations of foreign exchange and trade regulations.

While the Court initially observed that the petitions were devoid of specific evidence and were predominantly reliant on unsubstantiated claims, the gravity of the accusations and the claim by the petitioners that the authorities were either unwilling or unable to carry out a fair investigation persuaded the Court to step in in the interests of justice.

By a 25th August 2025 order, the Supreme Court ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a fact-finding inquiry. The SIT was tasked with comprehensively investigating all allegations and reporting to the Court. The SIT report along with annexures and materials, including electronic records, was filed on 12th September 2025. The report was first laid before the Court in sealed cover, then opened and read by the Bench.

The SIT investigated very thoroughly and comprehensively. It scrutinized reports, affidavits, expert views, and documentary evidence. Site visits were also done, and personal hearings were provided to stakeholders concerned. The investigation was not only limited to animal acquisition or smuggling but also to a vast array of issues.

The findings of SIT were unequivocal. Upon completing a meticulous fact-finding process in association with other expert and enforcement agencies, the SIT concluded that there were no violations of any provision of law or international commitments. In particular, it concluded that there was no breach. Accordingly, in spite of the sweeping charges, the SIT found that no illegality had been perpetrated by the respondent–Vantara regarding the matters sought to be raised in the petitions.

The Court observed that in the absence of supporting material in the petitions, its move to form an SIT was motivated by the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for its implications on wildlife protection and conservation in India. The proactive role of the Court secured a credible, independent, and transparent investigation by eminent former judges and senior officials.

The SIT report asserted that strict compliance with the law had been adhered to by the respondent–Vantara, and that nothing favoured the charges of smuggling, illegal procurement, or financial misconduct.

The Supreme Court directive in these writ petitions emphasizes a sensitive balance in dealing with serious allegations made in public interest litigation and providing a guarantee that institutions or persons are not unfairly defamed without reason. While initially recognizing the purely speculative nature of complaints, the Court still acted responsibly by ordering the formation of an SIT, thus maintaining transparency as well as judicial integrity oversight.

The SIT’s comprehensive investigation, ranging from animal welfare to compliance with international trade law, ended up acquitting the respondent–Vantara. The Court validated the SIT’s findings that no violations of the statute took place, thus putting an end to a case that had garnered much publicity.