Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed a contempt petition filed by a lawyer, Rahul Narula, regarding ill-treatment towards the animals in the Ambani Weddings based on an article titled, ‘The costs of Reliance’s wildlife ambitions’ published by an online platform known as Himal Southasian. However, the court noted that the allegations were “utterly in bad taste, unsavory and unpalatable”. 

“The headline of the article, its narrative and the layout chosen for the article i.e., large and enhanced photos, flashy colours and use of morphed photos, seem to be an attempt to attract the attention of the audience. It is unfortunate that the article further comprises innuendos towards the HPC as well as statutory authorities”, the bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held. 

Advocate Pritam Bishwas, representing the petitioner, also alleged contempt against the Chairpersons and office bearers of the High-Powered Committee as well as the private respondents based on the aforementioned article. 

The court, however, noted a lack of prima facie evidence to establish any inhumane or cruel treatment towards animals. The court noted that the referenced article did not, by itself, imply that any illegal, sordid, or wanton acts of cruelty were committed during the wedding event. The court also reiterated that newspaper reports cannot serve as a basis for legal action, as such reports are considered hearsay and unreliable unless substantiated by legally admissible evidence.

The court further observed that the article's headline, narrative, and visual presentation—including large, enhanced photos, flashy colors, and altered images—were designed to capture public attention. Moreover, the article contained insinuations about the High-Powered Committee (HPC) and statutory authorities. The petitioner admitted during the hearing that no independent efforts had been made to verify the details beyond the newspaper report, nor had any Right to Information requests or evidence been collected.

The court finds that neither the article’s content nor the excerpts from documents and social media cited in the article constitute cogent or legally recognizable material. The article itself indicated that the writer had consulted several individuals, a reason the Supreme Court cautioned against relying on such reports.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea with exemplary costs to warn the petitioner from submitting frivolous petitions in the future.

The article published on Himal Southasians titled ‘The costs of Reliance’s wildlife ambitions’ stated that Reliance Industries operates Vantara, a vast wildlife center within its Jamnagar refinery complex, housing over 4,700 animals, including endangered species. This facility, part of the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust and Greens Zoological, Rescue, and Rehabilitation Centre, aims to rescue and care for abused animals. 

Despite praise for high-quality care, concerns were raised about the suitability of Jamnagar’s heat and pollution for the animals, as well as the ethical sourcing and necessity of housing so many animals there. The recent relaxation of India’s wildlife regulations has facilitated Vantara’s rapid expansion, raising skepticism about its impact on wildlife management and legal compliance.

Vantara’s expansion includes acquiring additional properties and animals from around the world, leading to speculation about potential breeding farms or private reserves. Greens, associated with Vantara, denies these claims and asserts compliance with wildlife laws. However, issues such as controversial elephant transfers and potential violations of CITES norms add to the scrutiny of Vantara’s operations and the broader challenges in wildlife management in India.

Case Title: Rahul Narula v Union Of India & Ors. (2024:DHC:6512)