Vantara news has once again taken center stage in India after wildlife enthusiasts in Chhattisgarh demanded the return of a rare white bear and a deer that were transferred earlier this year to Reliance Foundation’s Vantara Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre in Jamnagar, Gujarat. The demand comes at a time when Vantara is already under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny following serious allegations of animal trafficking, irregularities, and questionable wildlife transfers.
Chhattisgarh Raises Strong Objection
In April 2025, a rare white bear from Chirmiri and a deer were shifted from Naya Raipur Jungle Safari to Vantara. In exchange, the Chhattisgarh Forest Department brought back a pair of zebras, mouse deer, and meerkats. However, activists allege that this transfer was carried out without proper permissions and violated wildlife protection norms.
This fresh controversy has widened the debate that originally began with the Madhuri elephant case, which had already sparked nationwide protests and discussions about Vantara’s role in India’s wildlife sector.
Table: Wildlife Transfers Between Chhattisgarh and Vantara
| Month/Year | Sent from Chhattisgarh | Received from Vantara | Issues Highlighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 2025 | Rare white bear, Deer | Zebras, Meerkats, Mouse Deer | Legality of transfer questioned |
| May 2025 | — | Male Zebra died in quarantine | Animal death, vacant enclosures |
Voices of Protest
Former Wildlife Board member Pran Chaddha strongly criticized the move, pointing out that the Wildlife Protection Act prohibits private ownership of wild animals. He asked:
“When the law clearly bans private possession, how are animals from different states being shifted to Vantara? What rules justify this exchange? There may be bigger reasons behind it, but right now, it raises more questions than answers.”
This statement mirrors the concern of wildlife lovers who feel that state biodiversity should not be surrendered to corporate-backed projects under the guise of conservation.
Empty Enclosures and Animal Deaths
The controversy deepened further when reports emerged that one of the zebras brought from Vantara to Raipur died in quarantine after a snake bite. The remaining zebra, along with meerkats and mouse deer, are still in quarantine and not on public display.
Ironically, the Jungle Safari in Raipur had spent nearly ₹12 crore building new enclosures for exotic animals like zebras and giraffes, but many of them remain vacant. This has frustrated locals and animal lovers, who argue that the state lost its rare species in exchange for nothing valuable.
Supreme Court Steps In: SIT to Probe Vantara
The latest Vantara news also includes the involvement of the Supreme Court, which has ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into allegations of:
- Animal trafficking
- Abuse and neglect
- Financial irregularities
- Misuse of environmental clearances
- Carbon credit fraud
The SIT is headed by Justice Jasti Chelameswar, a retired Supreme Court judge, along with Justice Raghvendra Chauhan, former Mumbai Police Commissioner Hemant Nagrale, and IRS officer Anish Gupta.
The panel has been given until September 12, 2025 to submit its report, with the matter listed for a Supreme Court hearing on September 15, 2025.
Vantara’s Official Statement
Responding to growing criticism, Vantara issued a statement:
“We respect the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vantara is committed to transparency, compassion, and strict compliance with the law. Our mission remains rescue, rehabilitation, and care of animals. We will fully cooperate with the SIT and continue our work in good faith.”
Despite these assurances, doubts remain over whether Vantara’s massive collection of animals truly aligns with India’s conservation ethics or serves other hidden purposes.
Madhuri Elephant Case Set the Stage
The Madhuri elephant case brought Vantara into national headlines even before Chhattisgarh’s demand. Madhuri, a temple elephant from Kolhapur, was ordered by the Bombay High Court and later the Supreme Court to be moved to Vantara because of her arthritis and stress-related issues.
While animal rights groups like PETA India supported the decision, locals in Kolhapur protested, saying that their religious beliefs were being insulted. This emotional clash between faith and animal welfare turned Vantara into a controversial name across India.
Bigger Questions Raised in Vantara News
The ongoing debate surrounding Vantara raises some critical questions:
- Legal Boundaries – If wild animals cannot be privately held, why are they being shifted to a corporate project?
- Role of States – Should states give up their rare wildlife in exchange for exotic species that may not even survive?
- Conservation or Corporate Expansion? – Is Vantara’s aim genuine rehabilitation, or is it a large-scale project serving business interests?
- Animal Welfare Accountability – Who is responsible if transferred animals die or do not thrive in their new environment?
Also read: Vantara News: Jain Community Protests in Lucknow Over Madhuri Elephant Transfer
National Impact of the Controversy
The issue has now grown beyond Madhuri the elephant or Chhattisgarh’s white bear. It has become a national-level test case for how India handles its wildlife resources. Conservationists argue that wildlife should remain under state and national control, not corporate-backed institutions, no matter how grand their facilities appear.
With the SIT now investigating and multiple states watching closely, the Vantara news story could shape the future of India’s wildlife policies.
Also read: SIT on Vantara Holds First Meeting: Roles, Responsibilities, and Key Issues Discussed
Conclusion
The debate over Vantara news shows that India is at a crossroads when it comes to wildlife management. Chhattisgarh’s demand for the return of its rare white bear and deer is not just about animals—it symbolizes the larger struggle between law, ethics, corporate power, and conservation values.
As the Supreme Court’s SIT digs deeper, the nation waits to see whether these animals will be returned and whether Vantara’s practices will stand the test of legality and transparency. What remains clear is that this controversy has forced the country to rethink the balance between wildlife protection and private intervention.
