Vantara the evolving landscape for Animal Rights

Introduction

Animal right has been a topic of discussion over few years. The safety, care and protection of animals has now occupied a central space in legislature, judiciary and most important in society of India. There are many legal rights and constitutional provisions that protect animal rights.

In this evolving stage ‘Vantara’ (Star of the Forest) is an initiative by Reliance Industries situated at Jamnagar district, Gujarat, India. Vantara was led by Anant Ambani. It is privately funded and the world’s largest zoo. Vantara spans over 3,500 acres, creating a sanctuary and rehabilitation center aimed at providing care, rescue, and conservation for diverse animal species.

Vantara has rescued an array of animals, accumulating noteworthy figures like over 200 elephants and thousands of other exotic wildlife, including rhinos, leopards, crocodiles, and various species of birds, including endangered wildlife.

By this article we will critically examine the Vantara operation in the light of animal rights.

Background

In India the concept of animal rights has ancient roots, particularly from Hinduism which emphasizes non-violence (Ahimsa). Western philosophers in the 20th century, especially the works of Peter Singer, are crucial in advancing the animal liberation movement, advocating for the complete elimination of animal exploitation.

According to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: It does not permit capturing healthy wild animals from the wild for sanctuary unless:

• They are rescued (injured, orphaned, or in conflict with humans).
• Rehabilitation is temporary, leading to release.

Landmark case: Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) advanced the concept of the Five Freedoms for animals:

• Freedom from hunger and thirst
• Freedom from discomfort
• Freedom from pain, injury, and disease
• Freedom from fear and distress
• Freedom to express normal behaviour

While Vantara represents one of the most ambitious private investments in animal care in India, its model raises key animal rights questions:

• Does it truly prioritize rehabilitation and release over exhibition?
• Are its imports in line with CITES and Wildlife Protection Act mandates?
• Is private monopoly over wildlife sanctuaries compatible with India’s constitutional mandate to protect wildlife for the public good (Article 48A, Article 51A(g))?

Legal Non-Compliance in Vantara’s Operation

1. Animal Acquisition

   In these elephants and other animals being taken from temples and private owners without due legal process which infringe the Wildlife Protection Act 1972. Reports suggest it imported around 39,000 animals from 32 countries, including potentially dubious sources, raising red flags about wildlife trade ethics.

   Sections 9, 40, 42 and 43
   If animals (especially elephants) are taken without proper certificates, permits, or legal transfer approval, it violates the Wildlife Protection Act 1972.

2. Wildlife Trade and Smuggling Illegally

   Sections 49, 49B and 48A WPA 1972
   Any trade, smuggling, or import/export of endangered species without official authorization violates these sections.

   It also infringed the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). If endangered animals or their parts are brought into India or sent abroad without CITES permits, it is illegal.

3. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960

   Many of the species reportedly housed in Vantara require specific temperature, humidity, and habitat conditions to thrive. Relocating them to a region with differing climatic conditions could result in stress, reduced immunity, and increased mortality rates.

   People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) v. Union of India (2011, Delhi HC) supports the argument that wild animals cannot be exploited under the pretext of entertainment or display.

   Reinforces that:

   • Captive elephants and other Schedule I animals require strict regulatory compliance.
   • Private sanctuaries or zoos (like Vantara) must ensure animals are not merely exhibits but are treated per the PCA Act and Wildlife Protection Act.
   • Public good and animal welfare must take precedence over commercial or prestige projects.

   Section 11
   Prohibits unnecessary pain or suffering to animals during captivity, transport, or relocation.

4. Environment Protection Act 1982

   Concerns over the ecological impact of bringing non-native species in unsuitable climatic zones.

   Section 7
   Prohibits operations that harm the environment without clearance.

5. Article 51A(g) – Fundamental Duty of Citizens

   This creates a collective responsibility, where wildlife protection cannot become an exclusive right of a private entity to the detriment of the public’s interest.

6. Article 48A – Directive Principle of State Policy

   This provision is a directive to the State, meaning wildlife sanctuaries must primarily be managed in a way that prioritizes ecological balance and the common good, not private profit.

   Relevant Case Laws

   • WWF-India v. Union of India (2013)
   • Wildlife is a public trust, not a private asset.
   • Private monopoly over wildlife sanctuaries contradicts Article 48A and 51A(g).
   • Conservation decisions must be science-based, not profit- or pride-driven.

7. Privatization & Lack of Transparency

   Observers have criticized its private nature, remote location in an arid zone near a massive oil refinery, and lack of public access, suggesting Vantara may reflect a vanity project rather than a conservation-centric initiative.

Conclusion

Vantara reflects India’s growing interest in animal care, but its alleged legal breaches and lack of transparency challenge its true purpose. For such projects to succeed, they must prioritize rehabilitation over exhibition, comply with wildlife laws, and operate with public accountability to ensure animals live with dignity and freedom.

References:

1. The Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g).
2. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 – Sections 9, 40, 42, 43, 48A, 49, 49B.
3. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Section 11.
4. The Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Section 7.
5. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
6. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547.  Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India (2013) 8 SCC 234. . People for ethical treatment of animals (peta) v. union of india (2011, delhi hc)
7. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
8. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (2nd Ed., Random House, 1990).
9. The Indian Express, “Vantara Project: A Sanctuary or a Private Zoo? March 2024.