ABSTRACT
In Jamnagar, Gujarat, the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre—better known as Vantara—has been promoted as a rescue and care facility operating on a scale rarely seen anywhere. Official figures claim more than 150,000 animals representing over 2,000 species, supported by on-site elephant hospitals, hydrotherapy pools, and veterinary suites fitted with MRI and CT scanners. The project formally began in February 2024, with an inauguration by Prime Minister Narendra Modi a year later, and has already picked up the Prani Mitra corporate award for animal welfare.
Yet the impressive scale hasn’t silenced its critics. Access to the grounds is tightly controlled, and the pace of expansion has led to doubts over whether animals receive the level of individual care implied in its public messaging. Vital statistics—survival rates, behavioural records, and sourcing documentation—are not in the public domain, leaving outsiders to work with partial information. Some have gone so far as to call it a “vanity project,” more about profile than conservation. Rumours, including claims of tooth alterations for photographs, have been repeated in some circles, though without any firm proof.
Keywords: Media freedom and SLAPPs, Conservation capitalism, censorship, investigative journalism.
INTRODUCTION
Vantara spans 3,500 acres in Jamnagar, Gujarat, and operates as a private wildlife rescue and rehabilitation facility established by the Reliance Foundation under Anant Ambani’s leadership. Since its launch in early 2025—an event marked by an inauguration from the Prime Minister—it has been pitched as nothing short of a global benchmark in animal welfare. The facility houses advanced veterinary labs, hydrotherapy pools designed for elephants, diagnostic imaging centres, and specialised rehabilitation units, all of which project an image of cutting-edge care.
That image, however, has been met with sustained scepticism. Reports suggest the sanctuary has taken in an unprecedented number of animals—likely in the tens of thousands—within a short span. Some conservationists and legal experts have openly questioned whether certain acquisitions may have originated from regions with a history of wildlife trafficking, raising the issue of potential non-compliance with the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and international conservation rules. The lack of independent oversight, coupled with management practices described by some as deliberately opaque, has only fuelled the debate.
The surrounding controversy has not been limited to conservation circles. Several investigative articles examining Vantara’s sourcing methods and operational transparency have quietly disappeared from high-profile outlets, with no clear explanation from editors. Journalists and advocacy organisations allege that legal threats and financial pressure have been used to influence coverage. The Delhi High Court’s decision to throw out Vantara’s defamation claim against Himal Southasian has since been interpreted as more than a procedural win—it was a pointed judicial statement in defence of press freedom and the value of investigative journalism in matters that touch the public interest.
Controversy flared again when “Madhuri,” an elephant also known in Kolhapur as “Mahadevi,” was moved from her long-time temple home to Vantara. The shift wasn’t arbitrary—it followed a court directive and had the open support of animal welfare groups such as PETA India, which pointed to her worsening health as the main reason she needed specialist care.
That didn’t land well with the citizens. In Kolhapur, the decision touched a nerve, setting off street demonstrations, public meetings, and eventually pulling local politicians into the argument. Some saw it as a rescue; others as an unwanted removal of a cultural symbol.
Trying to cool tempers, Vantara floated the idea of building a dedicated rehabilitation centre right there in Kolhapur. The group also backed the legal efforts still underway to bring Madhuri back—though whether that offer eased any tensions is, at best, debatable.
The Vantara case thus encapsulates the complex interplay of animal welfare, media freedom, and legal accountability within India’s conservation landscape. It underscores the urgent need for transparent governance structures, independent regulatory oversight, and policy frameworks capable of balancing conservation objectives with ethical standards, democratic safeguards, and the public interest.
ANIMAL WELFARE ASPECT: VANTARA SANCTUARY IN INDIA
- Animal Sourcing: Africa & Global Supply Chains
Investigations by Süddeutsche Zeitung and partner outlets suggest that as many as 39,000 animals—more than the total at London Zoo—may have been moved into Vantara from 32 different countries, several of which have documented wildlife trafficking issues .
Vantara rejects any suggestion of illegality, but the sheer scale and geography of these transfers have drawn sustained scrutiny.
In South Africa, the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) formally requested official inquiries into the export of cheetahs, lions, tigers, and other species bound for Vantara. The organisation flagged two concerns: first, the absence of “non-detrimental findings” required under CITES rules; second, Gujarat’s climate, which they argue is ill-suited for many of these animals.
Global NGOs have echoed these worries. FOUR PAWS reports that between 2020 and 2025, India imported at least 540 live big cats from multiple countries, with Vantara receiving a notable share. They also point to data inconsistencies—such as the case of 49 tigers allegedly exported from Argentina despite no matching CITES export records—arguing this highlights systemic failures in monitoring and compliance.
Some acquisitions have been traced by critics to commercial breeding facilities, including South Africa’s Akwaaba Lodge & Predator Park—entities not recognised as legitimate rescue institutions. Vantara maintains that every animal in its collection originates from lawful zoological, trading, or rescue sources.
- Ethical and Environmental Concerns
For critics, Vantara illustrates “conservation capitalism”—turning wildlife into prestige holdings rather than focusing solely on ecological outcomes. Its location beside a large oil refinery has also prompted warnings about air quality, heat stress, and other environmental risks for exotic species not adapted to arid conditions .
Changes to India’s Wild Life (Protection) Act in 2022 added another twist. By expanding the legal definition of a zoo to cover breeding and rehabilitation facilities, the amendments made licensing simpler for operations like Vantara. They also allowed captive-born Schedule I animals to be treated as Appendix II or III under CITES, which—critics say—could create legal pathways for commercial trade under a conservation label. Researcher Daniel Stiles has described the outcome as “greenwashing on an industrial scale” .
- The Madhuri Elephant Case – Welfare, Law, and Local Emotion
When the Bombay High Court ordered the relocation of Madhuri — a 36-year-old temple elephant from Kolhapur — to the Vantara facility in Jamnagar, it wasn’t just another legal ruling. It was the spark for one of the biggest public debates on animal welfare in recent memory. The petition, filed by PETA India, painted a grim picture: advanced arthritis, foot rot, and behavioural stress after years of ceremonial work . The Supreme Court later upheld the transfer on 29 July, saying her health came first, even if that meant breaking with tradition.
That verdict didn’t sit quietly with everyone. Kolhapur saw an estimated 30,000 people join a 45-kilometre silent march, demanding Madhuri’s return. The sheer turnout showed she wasn’t just an elephant to them — she was part of the city’s identity. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis responded by promising a Supreme Court review petition and forming a veterinary team dedicated to her care .
Vantara, for its part, stressed that it wasn’t the one pushing for the relocation. The organisation said it was simply carrying out a court order and that its priority was to provide the treatment she needed. Representatives also made a point of saying they respected religious traditions and were open to compromise .
One proposal on the table was to set up a smaller, fully equipped rehabilitation centre in Kolhapur itself, with hydrotherapy pools, chain-free spaces, and 24/7 veterinary cover — but that plan still needs judicial clearance.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR ANIMAL WELFARE?
- Welfare Prioritized Over Tradition:
The court rulings underscore a potent shift—in legal interpretation and public discourse—toward prioritizing animal welfare over religious usage. Relocating Madhuri acknowledges the necessity of specialized veterinary care unavailable at her historical place of residence .
- Ethical Sensitivity and Public Emotion:
Madhuri is widely viewed not only as a living being but as a spiritual and cultural symbol for Kolhapur communities. Vantara’s willingness to establish a local rehab facility and support her return illustrates an emerging model that no longer pits welfare against culture, but seeks a reconciliation of the two .
- Legal vs. Social Legitimacy:
Legally, Vantara acted within court mandates—but overwhelming public opposition highlights the gap between judicial decisions and emotional consent. Vantara’s pivot to engage with local stakeholders signals recognition of this gap .
- Transparency Remains Uncertain:
While the Madhuri episode generated visibility, the bigger question remains: Will Vantara extend this openness to its broader operations—like animal sourcing, species records, and long-term care protocols? As of now, transparency remains episodic, not systemic .
MEDIA FREEDOM AND THE VANTARA CONTROVERSY: INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM, CONFLICTS, ETHICS, AND PERCEPTION
- Role of Investigative Journalism
Investigative journalism is often romanticised, but in practice, it’s the slow, messy work of checking whether public claims hold up under scrutiny. In democracies, it’s meant to keep both governments and well-connected private actors in check. That’s exactly the role it has played with Vantara—Anant Ambani’s sprawling, 3,000-acre animal rescue and rehabilitation centre in Gujarat.
Vantara’s public image is all about conservation and animal welfare. Yet, not everyone is convinced. In March 2024, a collaboration between Himal Southasian, Süddeutsche Zeitung and other outlets—later featured by the Pulitzer Center—reported that the facility had imported over 39,000 animals from 32 countries. This list of countries includes biodiversity hotspots and places linked with illegal wildlife trafficking.
Such figures have raised concerns about compliance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and India’s Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA) subsequently called for a formal CITES investigation into Vantara’s sourcing practices (WAPFSA, 2024). This case illustrates how investigative journalism serves as a watchdog—probing whether an organisation’s self-description as a “sanctuary” matches reality or conceals practices at odds with its stated mission.
- Importance of Independent Access
Good reporting doesn’t happen from the press release desk. It happens when journalists get into the field, talk to multiple sources, and see what’s really going on. That’s where Vantara becomes complicated. According to several accounts, the facility has been open to curated tours for influencers and friendly media but far less accommodating to independent wildlife experts or critical reporters.
One conservationist described the whole operation as “all hush-hush,” which is not exactly the phrase you want attached to a conservation project. If independent access isn’t granted, reporters are left relying on second-hand descriptions, official statements, or leaked documents. That kind of coverage is always going to be incomplete.
The transparency Issue doesn’t stop at journalism. In June 2025, political opposition figures questioned whether a proposed agreement between Delhi Zoo and Vantara could be a first step towards privatisation of public zoological assets. Without open access, not only does media scrutiny shrink, but public oversight does too—and that can set precedents that outlast any one project.
- Conflicts Between Sanctuary and Press
3.1 Censorship and Story Removal
Not long after WAPFSA made its public statements, a strange pattern emerged in Indian media coverage. Several outlets—including The Telegraph, Deccan Herald, and The Tribune—either deleted or quietly replaced their critical pieces on Vantara without providing any explanation, which was later on documented by news laundry as well.
One case stood out was when on March 10, Financial Express swapped out an investigative report for a promotional article—on the exact same URL. No notice, no archive link, nothing. Readers who went back expecting the original story found it had simply vanished. Whether this came from direct external pressure or just editors playing it safe in the shadow of corporate power, the result was the same—less scrutiny.
- Threats, Intimidation, and Financial Coercion
Coverage of the Vantara controversy hasn’t just disappeared—it’s been actively targeted. Media watchdog accounts mention reporters receiving threatening emails and phone calls after publishing their stories. In one instance, a PR agency allegedly approached a journalist with an outright offer: change or remove the piece, and there’s money on the table. That’s not just spin control—that’s crossing into intimidation territory, the kind that chills reporting before it even happens.
- Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)
Then there’s the legal side. In 2025, Vantara filed a contempt-of-court petition against Himal Southasian, claiming the outlet had violated a supposed court order to remove its investigative report. But when the Delhi High Court looked at the record on 19 May 2025, it found that there was no such order and thus the case was dismissed.
Himal Southasian labelled the move a SLAPP—a lawsuit designed not necessarily to win, but to wear down journalists and scare them into silence.
While the dismissal was a clear win for press freedom, the case still shows how quickly legal action can be used as a blunt tool to discourage reporting. As Sabrang India noted, the outcome doesn’t erase the months of legal prep, stress, and cost for the publication .
- Ethical Media Practices
In principle, ethical journalism isn’t just about reporting the facts — it’s about holding the line when pushback comes. Some outlets have done this better than others. Scroll.in, for instance, when facing legal threats, kept the record straight by clearly flagging certain stories as “withheld in response to a legal demand.” Others took a quieter route, scrubbing articles from their sites with no explanation given.
The challenge here is balance. Journalists must avoid hyped-up or exaggerated framing, but also avoid letting influential actors shape the narrative through silence. In high-profile, high-stakes cases — especially those involving political or corporate power — small editorial decisions can have an outsized effect on how the public understands the story.
- Public Perception Management
While investigations have been ongoing, Vantara has run an aggressive and polished PR machine. Think curated behind-the-scenes tours for select media, influencer tie-ins, and heavyweight political endorsements — the most notable being Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s presence at the inauguration. That kind of moment lends an automatic stamp of legitimacy, even before the underlying questions have been answered.
Media analysts have pointed out that this kind of effort fits into the playbook of “reputation laundering” — where targeted public relations campaigns are used to reshape or override critical coverage. When you combine that with the quiet deletion of investigative articles, the end result is a shift in public focus — away from unresolved legal and ethical issues, and toward a polished image of benevolence and global leadership in animal welfare.. When you combine that with the quiet deletion of investigative articles, the end result is a shift in public focus — away from unresolved legal and ethical issues, and toward a polished image of benevolence and global leadership in animal welfare.
EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK
- Constitutional Provisions Relevant To Animal Welfare
- Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 , although primarily was meant to protect the life and secure dignity of the citizens of the country, the courts through various interpretation has been stretched to cover animals as well. In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the Supreme Court basically said — if humans have the right to live with dignity, why shouldn’t animals be spared unnecessary pain? That case banned Jallikattu and bullock cart races. The takeaway was that while a country upholds cultural aspects of individuals, that culture cannot justify cruelty.
- Article 51A(g) – Duty of Citizens
Article 51A(g) isn’t enforceable like a right, but it still plays a role in shaping social expectations. It urges citizens to show compassion and to safeguard the environment. Courts often cite it as a reminder that it’s not just the government’s job — people themselves carry part of the responsibility.
- Article 48A – Directive Principle
Article 48A pushes the State to protect forests and wildlife. Sure, it’s not legally binding in the way fundamental rights are, but it lays the foundation for policies and laws. Whenever governments drag their feet on environmental protection, courts often point to this article to nudge them.
- Division of Powers – State and Centre
Animal welfare isn’t handled by one authority. Under Item 14 of the State List, states can make laws on livestock health, veterinary practice, and preventing disease. Meanwhile, the Concurrent List gives both Centre and states powers over:
- Item 17 – prevention of cruelty to animals
- Item 17B – protection of wild animals and birds
If a state law clashes with a central one, the central law wins. This overlap explains why animal welfare legislation often feels like a patchwork, with both levels of government stepping in.
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
This Act aims to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. It criminalizes acts of cruelty, including beating, overloading, and causing unnecessary pain. However, the Act has been criticized for its outdated provisions and minimal penalties, which may not act as a strong deterrent. Calls for reform, such as the proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill, 2022, seek to address these issues by introducing stricter penalties and broader definitions of cruelty.
- Right to Information Act, 2005
The RTI Act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability. However, the Act includes several exemptions under Section 8, such as information prejudicial to national security or law enforcement. These limitations can hinder the public’s ability to obtain information about sanctuary operations, especially if such information is deemed sensitive. Recent cases have highlighted the misuse of these exemptions to deny information, raising concerns about transparency in wildlife sanctuaries.
- Defamation Laws and SLAPP Suits
Sanctuaries may resort to defamation lawsuits to protect their reputation against critical media coverage. While defamation is a civil offense, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) are often used to intimidate and silence critics. Although India lacks a specific anti-SLAPP law, the judiciary has shown a tendency to scrutinize such suits closely. For instance, the Supreme Court has adopted the Bonnard standard, requiring a stringent threshold for granting interim injunctions in defamation cases, thereby protecting free speech.
LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY ASPECT
- Enforcement Challenges
One of the recurring problems with sanctuaries like Vantara is not the absence of laws but how unevenly they are applied. India already has fairly strong statutes in place — the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — which together set a solid legal framework for animal welfare. The gap shows up in enforcement. On the ground, agencies are often understaffed, poorly trained, or working in silos, which means violations can slip by with little consequence. This uneven enforcement ultimately undercuts the purpose of the law, leaving gaps in accountability.
Influence and power add another layer of difficulty. Sanctuaries backed by wealthy or politically connected actors often find ways to ease past compliance checks or deflect criticism. The Vantara Sanctuary has now come to a point where several media reports are promoted to raise concerns over the questionable practices that has been taking place , including the fact of how these animals were obtained from overseas.
- Balancing Rights
Sanctuaries must navigate the delicate balance between freedom of speech and the right to protect reputation. While defamation laws allow institutions to safeguard their reputation, misuse of these provisions, including the filing of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), can stifle legitimate journalistic and public inquiry .
Similarly, there is a tension between public interest and operational privacy. Although sanctuaries may claim confidentiality, the public’s right to information, especially under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is crucial for ensuring transparency in animal welfare. Exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protect personal information, should not be misused to block access to information that concerns public interest .
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN WILDLIFE SANCTUARY CONTROVERSIES
- State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1991)
Overview: This landmark case emphasized the need for stringent enforcement of wildlife protection laws. The Supreme Court highlighted the ecological imbalances and degradation of the environment, stressing that if effective steps were not taken, the damage would become irreversible.
Significance: It underscored the judiciary’s proactive role in interpreting the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, to ensure the protection of wildlife and their habitats.
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996)
Overview: In this case, the Supreme Court applied the public trust doctrine, holding that certain resources like forests and wildlife are held by the State in trust for the public, and any private encroachment or misuse is impermissible.
Significance: This judgment reinforced the principle that environmental conservation is a public duty and cannot be compromised for private interests.
- Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014)
Overview: The Supreme Court recognized that animals have a right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, prohibiting practices like Jallikattu that cause unnecessary pain and suffering to animals.
Significance: This case marked a significant shift in recognizing animal rights within the constitutional framework, influencing policies related to wildlife sanctuaries.
- Sariska Tiger Reserve Boundary Alteration (2025)
Overview: The Supreme Court accepted petitions challenging proposed boundary changes of the Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan, arguing that such alterations violate legal protocols outlined in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and fail to gain informed consent from affected local communities.
Significance: This case highlights the Court’s vigilance in ensuring that any modifications to protected areas adhere strictly to legal and ecological standards.
- Kalesar Sanctuary Dam Construction (2025)
Overview: The Central Empowered Committee advised the Supreme Court against constructing dams inside Kalesar Wildlife Sanctuary in Haryana, citing irreversible ecological damage and loss of critical habitat for endangered species.
Significance: The Court’s consideration of expert recommendations underscores the importance of scientific evaluation in decisions affecting wildlife sanctuaries.
The ongoing scrutiny of Vantara Sanctuary, particularly regarding the alleged forced relocation of elephants, reflects the judiciary’s commitment to upholding legal standards in wildlife conservation. The Supreme Court’s involvement in such matters underscores the importance of transparency, ethical practices, and legal accountability in the management of wildlife sanctuaries.
CONCLUSION
The case of Vantara illustrates the tension between ambitious private conservation initiatives and the principles of transparency, legality, and accountability that underpin genuine animal welfare efforts. While its infrastructure and resources project an image of innovation and care, unresolved questions regarding animal sourcing, regulatory compliance, and operational opacity reveal significant gaps between perception and reality. The Madhuri case further highlights the complexity of balancing legal mandates, cultural sensitivities, and welfare standards, demonstrating that judicial intervention alone cannot secure legitimacy without social acceptance. Moreover, the controversies surrounding media censorship and strategic litigation point to broader concerns about freedom of expression and the role of investigative journalism in democratic oversight.
Ultimately, Vantara serves as a test case for India’s evolving conservation landscape. It underscores the urgent need for independent monitoring, consistent enforcement of wildlife laws, and a framework that integrates animal rights, community values, and press freedom. Unless these safeguards are institutionalized, projects of this scale risk becoming symbols of “conservation capitalism” rather than models of ethical stewardship.
Name: Akanksha Mukhopadhyay
College: Techno India University