Case Details: C.R. Jaya Sukin vs. Union of India (2025) 34 Centax 366 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pankaj Mithal & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
- S/Shri Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, K.M. Nataraj, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.’s, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Raghavv Sabharwal, Raghav Malhotra, Ayush Shrivastava, Harsh Vardhan, Dr. Sandeep Singh, Amit Kumar, Ms Yashika Anand, Ms Divya Mishra, Isaac Haiding, Ms Suresh Kumari, Shardul Singh, Manish Tiwari, Ms Sayali Sawant, Ms Prerna Gandhi, Anish Shahpurkar, Gaurang Bhusan, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms Astha Singh, Anuj Udupa, Rohan Gupta, Digant Mishra, Ram Kishor Lambat, Ms Kashmira Lambat, Abhinav Deshwal, Ms Radhika Awasthi, Suja Joshi, Sagar Lambat, Ms Manisha Chava, Anirudh Singh, Ms Hemadri Sharma, Advocates, Ashish Pandey, Manish Tiwari, Gurmeet Singh Makker, M/s. Lambat & Legiteam & M.K. Maroria, AOR’s, for the Appearing Parties.
Facts of the Case
The importer Vantara, along with Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Trust, faced allegations of animal smuggling, laundering, deficiencies in animal welfare standards, and financial improprieties under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (Wildlife Act), Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act), and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), along with other relevant laws and guidelines. The importer submitted that all animals were imported under valid permits for conservation and breeding programs and that all procedures, approvals, and documentation were completed in compliance with statutory requirements. Inspections and approvals had been conducted by multiple authorities including C.Z.A., CITES Management Authority of India, C.B.I., DRI, Customs, and the jurisdictional police. It was contended that the allegations were baseless and had been repeatedly rejected by prior judicial scrutiny. The importer further submitted that welfare standards adopted at Vantara exceeded statutory and international benchmarks and that there was no breach of financial or trade regulations. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no violation of law was established against Vantara or associated entities. The Court observed that the import of animals had been conducted with valid permits, statutory approvals, and multi-layered compliance checks by multiple authorities. Facilities at Vantara exceeded prescribed benchmarks for animal husbandry, veterinary care, and welfare, as confirmed by SIT, C.Z.A., Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat, CITES, and international certification bodies. Allegations of financial impropriety, laundering, or smuggling were found to be baseless. The Court noted that all complaints, petitions, news reports, articles, and catalogues were duly investigated and directed that no further proceedings based on the same allegations be entertained. A copy of the SIT report was to be furnished to Vantara under confidentiality, while Vantara could pursue defamation or related actions under BNS, 2023. Petitions were disposed of in favour of the importer.
