Vantara welcomes vindication as Supreme Court lauds conservation work of ‘true global significance’

Vantara—an initiative to protect and conserve wildlife—has welcomed a Supreme Court order that affirms its ethical and lawful foundations and rejects allegations concerning its rescue and rehabilitation work.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria refused to reopen an investigation into international animal transfers on May 27. The matter was already examined by a Special Investigative Team (SIT) constituted by the Supreme Court.

Based on the SIT's findings, the court concluded that Vantara's animal transfers across the UAE, Venezuela, Brazil, the Czech Republic, and South Africa are lawful, non-commercial, zoo-to-zoo movement supported by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) guidelines.

"The Court further recognised that conservation work of true global significance is being carried out at Jamnagar — including direct engagement with Brazil on the reintroduction of endangered macaws and a conservation breeding programme that advances worldwide species recovery," Vantara said in a statement.

More from India

The Bench further held that disturbing the settled and cared-for environment of rescued animals after their lawful arrival may amount to cruelty.

The facility has a multispeciality wildlife hospital for advanced diagnostics, surgery and long-term care. Image courtesy: Vantara

Vivaan Karani, Chief Executive Officer of Vantara, said, "This judgment affirms the truth that has guided us from the very first rescue — that every animal in our care arrived lawfully, was treated ethically, and is protected for life. The nation's highest court has recognised yet again, not only the integrity of our work, but the spirit behind it. At Vantara, conservation is not a claim, it is a daily act of compassion. To every sceptic, our answer remains the same as our promise to every creature we have ever healed — Every Life Matters. We are humbled, we are vindicated, and we are more committed than ever to the animals who depend on us."

What's the case?

On March 9, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition alleging irregularities in the import of animals from foreign countries.

The bench found no merit in the allegations and upheld the SIT clean chit earlier granted to Vantara, which at its core believes that every life matters.

Observing that due process had been followed, the court further stated that imports carried out with proper authorisations cannot be deemed unlawful on the basis of subsequent objections.

Across 998 acres of protected land, the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust at Vantara shelters more than 260 elephants rescued from lives of hardship, from logging camps, city streets, and circuses. Image courtesy: Vantara

The most recent plea, which was similarly rejected by the court, sought a recall of the March 9 order and demanded a fresh probe by agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

What has the bench said?

"What we have seen is that all transfers up to September 2025 have been considered and concluded by the SIT, and their report has been accepted by a detailed, speaking and reasoned Order dated 15.09.2025 passed by this Court. Thereafter, by an Order dated 09.03.2026, this Court, for reasons stated therein, refused to revisit or reopen the case and, in fact, affirmed the Order dated 15.09.2025," the court said.

"Thus, an order of this Court accepting the Report of a Court-constituted SIT, affirmed by a later order declining to revisit it, carries a finality not lightly to be disturbed," it added.

Vantara has rewilded spotted deer into Barda Wildlife Sanctuary. Image courtesy: Vantara

The Court emphasised that its constitutional jurisdiction is not meant to facilitate the endless reopening of issues that have already been examined by a high-powered SIT and brought to a close through judicial orders.

It also noted that the purported fresh material relied largely on newspaper reports and online articles, observing that allegations based merely on inference do not constitute legally cognizable allegations.