Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Yes. In an order dated 15 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India accepted a court-appointed Special Investigation Team’s conclusion that the animal acquisitions it examined at Vantara complied with the applicable laws and regulatory requirements. The Court closed the complaints listed in Schedule A. The ruling concerns the allegations and record examined in that inquiry; it is not a blanket finding about every animal transfer, past or future.
What the Supreme Court decided
Two public-interest petitions raised allegations about Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) and Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (RKTEWT), which the Court’s order refers to collectively as Vantara. On 25 August 2025, the Court appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine those allegations. On 15 September, it accepted the SIT’s conclusions and directed that the complaints listed in Schedule A be treated as investigated and closed. The Court wrote: “The Court has no hesitation in accepting the conclusion so drawn in the report.” Supreme Court of India, order dated 15 September 2025.
The Court also directed that no further complaint or proceeding based on the same set of allegations be entertained, to secure finality. That direction addresses the allegations before it; it does not establish that later events or materially different evidence have already been adjudicated.
What the SIT examined
The SIT included former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar, former chief justice Justice R.S. Chauhan, and former Mumbai police commissioner Hemant Nagrale. It coordinated with central and state agencies, including the Central Zoo Authority (CZA), Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, CITES Management Authority of India, CBI, Enforcement Directorate, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs Department, and local police.
#1 Best Overall
The inquiry covered domestic and overseas animal acquisitions, with particular attention to elephants. It considered compliance with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, zoo rules, CITES and import/export requirements, as well as animal husbandry, veterinary care, welfare and mortality. The investigation also examined climate and location, conservation and breeding, water and carbon-credit concerns, and allegations of financial or trade impropriety. The SIT summary says it reviewed oral and documentary evidence, regulatory records and prior judicial decisions.
What the public summary says about animal numbers and permits
The SIT summary reports a total of 40,633 animals acquired by the two Vantara entities. It lists 29,274 imported animals for GZRRC and 6,034 for RKTEWT, and separately identifies five elephants acquired by GZRRC and 270 by RKTEWT. These are figures reported in the summary, not independently recalculated here.
Rank #2
The SIT concluded that the domestic acquisitions and imports it examined complied with the relevant requirements, including India’s wildlife and zoo frameworks, CZA guidelines, CITES, customs and foreign-trade rules, FEMA and anti-money-laundering law. For imports, the summary describes checks involving the CZA, the environment ministry’s Wildlife Division, animal husbandry authorities, Indian and exporting-country CITES authorities, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, animal quarantine services and customs.
The SIT summary states: “The mere numerical volume of imports is not, in itself, indicative of illegality.” The conclusion was based on the permits, records and other material reviewed, rather than on animal numbers alone.
What the order reports about animal welfare
The order summarizes the SIT’s assessment that expert input and inspections found the facilities compliant with prescribed standards and, in some respects, above CZA benchmarks. It also reports the SIT’s conclusion that mortality figures aligned with global zoological averages and that the investigation found no deficiency in welfare standards. These are findings attributed to the SIT and described by the Court, not an independent welfare assessment.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is public—and what the ruling does not decide
The Court’s order says the underlying SIT report and annexures were to be resealed and kept confidential, while the exhaustive summary was not confidential. Readers therefore have the Court’s account and the public summary, not the full underlying report and annexures.
The summary says the investigation found valid permits and permissions for exports to the Vantara entities. That finding does not purport to decide every possible question about a donor zoo’s domestic acquisition practices in another country. More broadly, the Court accepted the SIT’s conclusions for the allegations it considered and closed the Schedule A complaints; it did not rule in advance on unrelated transfers, later conduct or materially different evidence.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
