Wildlife As Property
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Environmental Law
Published:
Updated:
WILDLIFE AS PROPERTY
Anannya Jain, Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University 1. Introduction Is it possible to own wildlife like elephants, tigers, and lions in India? Section 391 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA) says no. Stating that all wild animals once captured, killed, or possessed become the property of the State Government. It is an offense under this provision for anyone to acquire, keep, or transfer such government property without permission. Thus, wildlife is treated as res publica, thing belonging to the State, not open for commercial trade or private ownership. Yet, Vantara, a privately owned wildlife shelter developed by Anant Ambani and Reliance Industries, houses over 2000 animals of 43 species.
2 Raising an important question of whether wildlife can be considered property under Indian law and how do private initiatives like Vantara conform to laws while housing wildlife? The answer lies in examining the relevant provisions of the WLPA, and to a limited extent, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).
2. The Legal Framework 2.1. Constitution The foundation of the legal principles governing the wildlife in India is established in the Constitution. Article 48A3 directs the State to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. While Article 51A4 states that it is the fundamental duty of the citizens to protect the wildlife. In the Asiatic Lion case,5 the Supreme Court affirmed that the obligation of species conservation also flows from Article 21,6 right to life, and the public trust doctrine.
1 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA), s 39.
2 ‘All about Vantara, the 3000-Acre Animal Shelter Launched by Anant Ambani in Jamnagar’ (Times of India, 19 December 2024) accessed 4 May 2025
3 The Constitution of India 1950, art 48A.
4 ibid art 51A.
5 Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. UOI, [2013] 6 S.C.R. 757.
6 Constitution (n3) art 21.
2. 2. TPA The TPA does not explicitly define “property” or grant rights over living creatures. S. 3 of TPA7 read with S. 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (GCA)8 merely defines immoveable property, as land, benefits arising out of land, and things permanently attached to the earth. S. 3(36) of GCA9 defines moveable property as everything else. Hence, wildlife would be considered as moveable property. However, TPA’s scope is limited. For an item to be transacted under the TPA, someone must have an existing proprietary interest to transfer. Wildlife is not legally owned by any party and hence there is no enforceable sale contract. Even if held in captivity, a wild animal would be a transferable movable item under TPA only as long as no other law forbids its transfer.
However, while the TPA might hypothetically allow the transfer of wildlife as movable property, the WLPA’s provisions take precedence due to its role as a special legislation protecting fauna. 2. 3. WLPA WLPA was enacted specifically to conserve wildlife and regulate the protection of the fauna. S. 39(1)10 in clear language vests the ownership of any illicitly killed or possessed wildlife with the State. It also prohibits individuals from acquiring or transferring such “government property” without permission. S. 4211 allows the Chief Wildlife Warden to issue ownership certificates to those in lawful possession of wild animals, such as zookeepers. However, S. 4312 imposes strict limits, certificate holders cannot sell or commercially transfer such animals.
Sections 38A13 and 38H14 further strengthen this framework by establishing the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) and mandating that no zoo can operate without its prior authorisation from the CZA. In 2022, S. 4315 was amended to allow the transfer or transport of captive elephants “for a religious or any other purpose” by a person having a certificate of ownership. Reflecting growing pressure to allow private transfer of elephants, albeit under regulation. 16 Hence, the
7 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), s 3.
8 General Clauses Act, 1897 (GCA), s 3(26).
9 ibid s 3(36).
10 WLPA (n1) s 39(1).
11 ibid s 42.
12 ibid s 43.
13 ibid s 38A.
14 ibid s 38H.
15 (n12).
16 Jay Mazoomdar, ‘Parliament Passes Wildlife Bill’ (The Indian Express, 10 December 2022)
accessed 4 May 2025 State retains ultimate ownership of the wildlife. Private persons can only hold wildlife with a government certificate and cannot treat it as their commercial asset. 2. 4. Public Trust Doctrine The above statutory provisions operate against the backdrop of the public trust doctrine, an ancient Roman Empire theory. The Supreme Court explicitly adopted this doctrine in M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath. 17 The Court observed that “certain common properties... were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. ”18 “It would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. ”19 The SC has consistently affirmed that wild animals cannot be privately owned. In Tilok Bahadur Rai,20 the court recognized the inherent ferae naturae, wild nature, of animals like tigers, treating them as nonproprietary unless lawfully dealt with.
In Murad Ali Khan,21 the court emphasized the WLPA’s purpose to preserve ecological balance by controlling the capture, possession, and killing of wild animals; even after capture, animals under human custody are still subject to government control. In T. N. Godavarman,22 the court reaffirmed that the regulation and protection of forests and wildlife habitats lies solely with the State through its statutory and regulatory bodies, not private individuals. 3. Vantara’s Legality Vantara, also known as Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC), aims to house hundreds of injured, abused, or endangered animals. It is administered by the Radhe Krishna Trust (or Greens Trust), a private entity registered by Reliance. The Greens Trust in
2019 applied for permission, under S.38H,23 from the CZA to operate as a zoo.24 CZA after
independent evaluations gave recognition to the zoo until 2027 for now.25 This permission was
17 [2000] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 389.
18 ibid.
19 ibid.
20 v. State of Arunachal Pradesh [1979] Cri LJ 1404.
21 State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan [1988] 4 SCC 655.
22 In Re
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, [2018] SCC OnLine SC 3924.
23 (n14).
24 M. Rajshekhar, ‘The Costs of Reliance’s Wildlife Ambitions’ (Pulitzer Center, 20 March 2024)
accessed 4 May 2025 25 WAPFSA, Annual Report 2023–2024: Gujarat State Zoological Society, Jamnagar accessed 4 May 2025. contested in a PIL case, however the Supreme Court upheld it as valid. 26 Legally, Vantara is treated as a zoo within the framework of the WLPA. Moreover, each animal can only enter with a state‐issued ownership certificate, for example, a rescued leopard arrived only after the forest department issued its certificate, and the elephant Kamno was handed over to the Trust once Arunachal Pradesh granted an ownership certificate on May 25, 2022. 27 Crucially, transfers of wildlife to Vantara have been subject to intensive state oversight. Tripura HC had directed that a High-Powered Committee (HPC), headed by retired J. Deepak Verma, supervise all elephant relocations to Vantara. 28 Which was then extended nationwide by the SC.
29 The January 2025 transfer of 20 elephants from Arunachal was carried out with the approval of the HPC. 30 All animals brought to Vantara are still technically government property. Due to S. 43,31 Vantara does not have any right to sell or transfer these animals. In legal terms, Vantara does not have absolute ownership over these animals, rather is holding them as an entrusted custodian. The State can ask for any animal back or transfer it elsewhere. 4. Legal Gaps 4. 1. Sourcing The animals in Vantara come from different places; logging camps, temples, purchased overseas, etc. In each case, Vantara relies on official narratives that the transfers were lawful, for example, owners “bequeathed” the elephants due to inability to care for them. 32 However this system can mask “illicit supply.
” Under WLPA, new captive elephants should only come from inheritance or gifts; commercial trade is banned. Yet in practice, gift deeds and “rescues” have become common workarounds. There is also no legal guarantee that all animals were acquired absolutely legitimately by the previous holder. The fact that an HPC is needed for each transfer indicates the state’s recognition that these transfers are extraordinary. Private centers also often rely on unclear exchanges or ad hoc approvals, raising legal and ethical
26 Kanhaiya Kumar v. CZA [2022] SCC OnLine SC 1228.
27 M. Rajshekhar (n 24).
28 Sudipa Nath v. Union of India, [2022] SCC OnLine Tri 691.
29 Muruly M.S. v State of Karnataka [2023] SCC OnLine SC 224.
30 ‘20 Elephants Rescued from the Logging Industry to Find Freedom in Anant Ambani’s Vantara, a Chain-Free Sanctuary’ (The Economic Times, 22 January 2025) accessed 4 May 2025.
31 (n 12).
32 M. Rajshekhar (n 24).
questions. For instance, it was reported that several of Vantara’s exotic animals came from foreign sources, such as Fauna Zoo in Mexico, and Indian wildlife exchanges. 33 There are also reports that lions and tigers seemed to be purchased and exported from breeding facilities in South Africa. 34 Moreover, a lack of centralized databases makes it difficult to track animals or ensure compliance. Media and government reports reveal widespread non-compliance, including unregistered pet shops at Delhi’s pigeon bazaar,35 which make recognising the source and tracking transfers extremely difficult. The Indian legal framework does not establish clear protocols for sourcing animals and verifying their custodial history. 4. 2. Lack of Transparency or Accountability The creation of an HPC is an ad hoc solution without statutory basis.
Vantara’s partners point to the Supreme Court’s involvement as assurance of legality. 36 Yet outside the HPC supervision, there is no routine public reporting on what happens at Vantara. For instance, there is no public registry listing every animal moved in or out, or disclosing mortality or health statistics. Unlike government zoos, Vantara is not directly answerable to legislatures or RTI queries. This absence of transparency has led to several concerns and critiques. The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) has also raised serious concerns about the mass export of wild animals to Vantara, citing unsuitable climatic conditions, lack of transparency, and fears of exploitation through captive breeding. 37 WAPFSA has claimed that the Vantara transfers may not be genuine rescues but a disguised form of commercial wildlife trade.
38 There are reports of articles on Vantara published by The Telegraph and The Tribune, exposing questionable wildlife transfers, having disappeared without any explanation. 39 “Journalists and 33 Jayashree Nandi, ‘Animal Transfers Need Better Scrutiny, Activists Tell Centre’ (Hindustan Times, 5 April 2024) accessed 4 May 2025. 34 Himanshu Nitnaware, ‘South African Organisation Raises Concern on Large Exports of Wildlife to Vantara’ (Down To Earth, 10 March 2025) accessed 4 May 2025. 35 Varsha Singh, ‘India’s Illegal Bird Markets Thrive despite Prohibitory Laws’ (India Spend, 9 April 2025) accessed 4 May 2025. 36 ‘Vantara to Shelter 20 Elephants Rescued from Exploitative Logging Industry’ (Business Standard, 23 January 2025) accessed 4 May 2025.
37 Nitnaware (n 34.)
38 Santanu Mukherjee, ‘Vantara Controversy
Threat Calls to Media, Vanishing Reports Demand Investigation by Government and International Media’ (Climate Samurai, 18 March 2025) accessed 4 May 2025.
39 ibid.
independent bloggers have reported receiving threatening calls and emails, allegedly pressuring them to take down their stories.”40 4.3. Gaps in the Legal Framework A fundamental gap is the absence of any formal category for custodians or stewards of wildlife.
Entities like Vantara must hold ownership certificates despite lacking economic rights, such as selling or relocating animals, creating a paradox of title without meaningful control. Their status can be better defined as custodians but there is no legal definition or protocol for the same. There is a fundamental contradiction between TPA and WLPA. While the TPA allows property transfer by contract, the WLPA prohibits commercial transactions involving wild animals. Thus, selling a legally held wild animal, though conceptually allowed under TPA, becomes a criminal act under WLPA. This creates a legal paradox, with courts prioritizing the WLPA as a special protective statute, yet the legal framework lacks clear reconciliation between the two. There has also been criticism of the 2022 amendment to S. 43 as “the sweeping ambit of “any other purpose”...
will empower elephant traders, put wild populations at greater risk of capture, and defeat the very purpose of WLPA. ”41 Certificates of ownership are routinely treated as simple formalities, and there is no independent auditing of captive animal facilities. 5. Solutions The WLPA should include a formal “stewardship license” or “custodian license” category. Such a license would recognize private conservation entities not as owners or temporary holders, but as long-term custodians with clearly defined rights and responsibilities. Drawing parallels from property law’s treatment of easements and beneficial interests, this category would include renewable terms of custody, conditions for transfer, enforceable rights against third parties and more.
A centralized registry would provide transparency through unique animal identification, chain-of-custody records, real-time tracking, and public disclosure. Conflicts between TPA and WLPA must be legislatively resolved by clarifying that wildlife cannot be property and setting clear criteria for exemptions, especially regarding ambiguous terms like “religious or other purposes. ” Intervention is required from the Indian government, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, NBSA, and the Press Council to investigate the suppression of media coverage, reported intimidation of journalists, and the ethical basis of
40 ibid.
41 Mazoomdar (n 16).
wildlife transfers to private facilities. 42 Finally adherence to WAPFSA’s demands of independent audit of Vantara’s operations, tighten regulations, and push for a reassessment of CITES to eliminate loopholes. 43 WAPFSA has also required “independent, verifiable evidence” that animals were truly rescued from adverse conditions and “independent scientific proof that the welfare and wellbeing of each of these animals is not compromised. ”44 6. Conclusion Ultimately, remembering that wildlife belongs neither to the state nor to private entities, but represents a shared heritage that transcends conventional notions of property altogether. The Supreme Court recently gave a nod to the Greens Trust, Vantara’s admin, as a “bonafide Trust” engaged in significant rescue work.
45 By deterring frivolous PIL against such work, the Court takes a step forward in recognizing the important role played by private individuals in caring for wildlife. It also puts more onus on such private caregivers to see that their role should not turn into a vehicle of commercial exploitation. It is not meant to be a blanket endorsement but a call for system change, clear legislation, and accountability from institutions. At its core is a larger question: can the law shift to reflect a true relationship with nature, one of partnership and stewardship and not ownership? While the public trust doctrine provides a valuable foundation, it may be time to move toward a legal imagination that regards humans as custodian, not masters, of the natural world.
As initiatives like Vantara expand, the Supreme Court rightly reminds us that our attention must stay focused on the “welfare, care and rehabilitation of wild animals” not commercial or private gain. 46
42 Mukherjee (n 38).
43 ‘Vantara: The Illusion of Conservation or a Billionaire’s Private Zoo?: Big Cat Rescue: Wild Cats in the Wild: Our Mission, Their Future.’ (Big Cat Rescue) accessed 4 May 2025.
44 WAPFSA, ‘Neither Rescue nor Conservation
The Accumulation of India’s Vantara’s Wild Animals’ accessed 4 May 2025. 45 Padmakshi Sharma, ‘Supreme Court Forms Committee to Oversee Transfer/Import of Wild Animals in India’ (Live Law, 6 March 2023) accessed 4 May 2025
46 Ibid.