The Supreme Court rejected a public interest petition that accused Vantara’s animal welfare trusts of breaking international wildlife trade rules. The Court said the claims were similar to an earlier case, which had already been examined and cleared by a court-appointed investigation.

Vantara is a large animal rescue, care, and rehabilitation project set up by the Reliance Foundation in Jamnagar, Gujarat. Anant Ambani, son of industrialist Mukesh Ambani, leads the project and is closely involved in its vision and operations.

Petition By Foundation Under Article 32:
Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria refused to hear the petition, which was filed by the Karanartham Viramah Foundation under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition relied on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) Secretariat document and claimed there were issues in animal imports by Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Center and Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust.

The foundation asked the Court to take several steps. It wanted details of import/export licences and CITES permits given to private players. It also asked for an independent panel to check if rules were followed, action under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, a standard process to verify permits, and a stop on further imports of certain species by private organisations.

The Court said these same issues had already been raised in CR Jaya Sukin v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 913. In that case, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had closely examined Vantara’s animal acquisitions and found no violations. The Court had accepted the SIT’s final report on September 15, 2025.

Court:No Violations Found

The bench said: “Subject matter of the petition, in substance, is the same which was the subject matter of consideration in W.P.(C) No. 783 of 2025. Those matters stood examined by the SIT constituted by this Court and the final report of the SIT has been accepted by this Court on 15.09.2025. The same categorically records that no violation of any domestic or international law was found.”

The Court also said that if imports were done with valid permissions, they cannot later be called illegal just because objections were raised later. It said : “…once an import has been effected under the valid permission, the same cannot subsequently be treated as prohibited qua the importer merely because the objections were raised thereafter.”

Referring to East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1962 AIR 1893, the Court explained that once proper official permissions are given and used, they should not be easily reversed.

Court Warns Of Harm To Animals:
The judges also warned that cancelling such imports, especially when they involve live or rescued animals, could harm them. They said: “More importantly, disturbing the settled environment, custody and air of living animals, including rescued animals after lawful import, may itself result in cruelty”.

In the end, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Details: KARANARTHAM VIRAMAH FOUNDATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.