The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging alleged irregularities in wildlife imports by Vantara-linked entities. Notably, the Court found that earlier proceedings had already examined and rejected the same issues. Furthermore, it cautioned that disturbing animals after lawful import may itself amount to cruelty.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria refused to entertain the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Karanartham Viramah Foundation.
Petitioner Alleges Violations of CITES Norms
The petitioner relied on documents from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Secretariat. Specifically, it alleged irregularities in animal imports by two Vantara-associated trusts—Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Center and Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust.
In addition, the petition sought several directions. It requested disclosure of import and export licences, verification of CITES permits through an independent body, initiation of proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, formulation of standard operating procedures, and a temporary ban on further imports of certain species by private entities.
Court Relies on Prior SIT Findings
However, the Court noted that it had already examined the same issue in CR Jaya Sukin v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 913. In that case, the Court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine the acquisition of animals by Vantara.
Subsequently, the SIT conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted its final report, which the Court accepted on September 15, 2025. The report found no violation of domestic or international law in the acquisition of animals.
Therefore, the Bench observed that the present petition raised substantially identical issues and did not warrant fresh consideration.
Lawful Imports Cannot Be Reopened
Moreover, the Court held that authorities cannot treat imports as illegal once they grant valid statutory permissions and the importer acts upon them.
In this regard, the Bench relied on East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1962 AIR 1893. It reiterated that administrative approvals attain finality after lawful grant and implementation. Consequently, authorities cannot unsettle such approvals merely because objections arise at a later stage.
Disturbing Animals May Lead to Cruelty
Importantly, the Court emphasised that interference with lawfully imported animals could adversely affect their welfare. In particular, disturbing their settled environment, custody, or habitat—especially in the case of rescued animals—may itself amount to cruelty.
Petition Dismissed
Finally, after considering the prior findings and the applicable legal principles, the Court found no grounds to proceed with the petition and dismissed it.
Cause Title: Karanartham Viramah Foundation v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 266
Also Read: Accelerated Promotion Police: SC Backs Telangana Constable
