ON SEPTEMBER 15, THE SUPREME COURT closed the matter concerning the Vantara zoological facility at Jamnagar, Gujarat. Accepting the report of a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’), the Court declared that the acquisition of animals had taken place in full regulatory compliance and that no foul play had been found.
The proceedings were swift: a public interest petition filed on August 7 was followed by the constitution of the SIT on August 25. The SIT filed its report in “sealed cover” by September 12. Within 17 days of being constituted, the SIT had cleared Vantara of all allegations. The Court accepted its findings in toto.
The speed, the sealed-cover procedure, and the eventual closure of the matter drew sharp public commentary. Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, for instance, remarked on the judiciary’s selective efficiency, noting that while millions of cases languish for years, this one was concluded “expeditiously and categorically” in just over a month.
Yet, the debate over judicial priorities, sealed covers, and preferential speed is familiar territory. Senior Advocate Harish Salve’s submissions in court even offered persuasive reasoning for confidentiality. Pointing to concerns about commercial secrecy, reputational narratives, and global scrutiny, he argued that the Court’s acceptance of a sealed report did not seem reasonless.
This article, however, argues that a deeper case of arbitrariness lies elsewhere - in a rather unnoticed corner of the order - mentioned in passing in the myriad reports that have extensively covered the Vantara judgment.
