Bengaluru: The recent recommendation by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) that India not import endangered wildlife is a “premature” and “disproportionate” moratorium, India argued in its response to the international Convention this week. 

Defending its imports of endangered wildlife, India said that the recent CITES investigation had not found evidence of illegal or commercial trade in live wild animals. India added that it has a “stringent” and “effective” mechanism in place to ensure that it adheres to provisions under the CITES, and is strengthening this system in many ways to implement the recommendations of the CITES.

A moratorium that prevents India from importing wild animals from other countries would “lack legal foundation”, India claimed. It requested the CITES, therefore, to “refrain” from finalising the moratorium and not impose such a “restrictive or punitive” measure.

A 'premature' measure 

In early November, the Secretariat of the CITES (an international agreement under the United Nations that takes actions to ensure that trade in endangered species does not threaten their survival) had found that India did not properly verify the sources and origins of some live wild animals imported to Vantara. It recommended that India should not import endangered wildlife anymore until it conducts ‘due diligence’ while issuing permits and implements several recommendations to this effect. The recommendation was part of a CITES report on compliance matters after the Convention conducted an investigation into animal transfers at Vantara, Reliance’s zoo cum rescue centre, while also engaging with several departments in the Indian government including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

India “appreciates” this “detailed technical mission”, it said in its response to the report this week. It also expressed its “sincere gratitude” for the technical assistance and recommendations provided to strengthen India’s CITES implementation framework.

However, India has “consistently aligned its domestic legal framework and administrative procedures with CITES obligations”, it said. It alleged that given that the CITES mission itself had found no illegal import or commercial trade occurring in India, any recommendation amounting to a suspension or moratorium on lawful Appendix-I imports would be “premature and disproportionate”. 

“The Convention envisages graduated, facilitative compliance measures (Decision 18.31 (Rev. CoP19)), not punitive restrictions in the absence of verified violation. India’s voluntary invitation to the verification mission and full disclosure of all records exemplify the good-faith cooperation that the Standing Committee has historically encouraged and rewarded,” India said.

India also reminded the CITES that the onus of unverified export permits falls on the issuing countries as well:

“India reiterates that compliance under CITES is a shared responsibility among importing, exporting, and transit Parties. The cooperative foundation of the Convention depends on mutual recognition of each Party’s Management Authority determinations,” it said in its response. 

India uses SC ‘clean chit’

India, once again, used the findings of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by its Supreme Court to claim that it has an existing “stringent” and “effective” mechanism in place to ensure it was adhering to provisions under the CITES:

“The recent order dated 15th September, 2025, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Apex Court of India), has clearly validated the stringent and effective process being ensured by India as per provisions of CITES,” India’s response to the CITES said.

However, this ‘clear validation’ by the Supreme Court is under wraps: the Court chose to not make public the full report of the SIT. The Court released only a summary of this report, which the SIT had submitted in a sealed envelope. Activists have already criticised this lack of transparency. 

The Wire had already pointed out in its news report on November 5 about how the CITES report too had mentioned instances of the Indian government using the recent ‘clean chit’ given to Vantara by the Supreme Court to state that India’s wild animal imports were in order. But the CITES report had revealed numerous concerns in the export permits of wild animals including a lone mountain gorilla from Haiti and chimpanzees from Congo to the rescue center. The Supreme Court’s SIT did not flag any of these concerns despite its detailed investigation.

India mentioned the Supreme Court order (that absolved Vantara of wrongdoing) three times in its eight-page response to the CITES. 

“The Supreme Court of India’s Order of 15 September 2025 reaffirmed that acquisitions by these facilities were conducted in compliance with all national and CITES requirements,” it read.

Only an “interim snapshot”

India claimed that its system of wildlife governance functions on a “scale unmatched” among other CITES signatory nations. It also argued that the CITES mission team was “small” and that a five-day verification process would provide only an “interim snapshot”. 

“A five-day verification visit by a small mission team can, at best, provide an interim snapshot. The continuing cooperation between India and the Secretariat must therefore be viewed in the context of this complexity and of India’s consistent, good-faith engagement,” India’s response read.

Incidentally, the SIT team that investigated Vantara in September this year was also small. It consisted of only four members. Two of these members are retired court judges, and two are serving officials of the police and customs departments. All members of the SIT, therefore, held or are still holding government positions. None of these members have a background in wildlife research or conservation. 

Moreover, the SIT spent only three days at Vantara (the Greens Zoological, Rescue and Rehabilitation Center and the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust which are entities that comprise Vantara) to conduct its investigation.

A Due Diligence Cell and more

India has said in its response that though the CITES mission did not find wild animals being traded without permits or for commercial purposes, it is taking the following steps to meet the recommendations of the body:

1. Government departments under the union environment ministry are reinforcing and reviewing import procedures “to integrate a more robust risk-based due diligence mechanism” before issuing import permits. 
2. Optimising the structure and resources of India’s CITES Management Authority and the regional offices of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB, whose five regional offices are also permitted to issue CITES permits) to ensure timely verification with exporting and re-exporting entities
3. Reviewing the organizational structure of the WCCB to “augment and strengthen” technical staff and separate enforcement functions from permit-processing ones
4. Constituting a “CITES Due Diligence Cell” under the union environment ministry to conduct background checks on high-volume or high-risk import requests
5. India’s CITES Management Authority has begun direct consultations with the Management Authorities of several countries including Czechia, Germany, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the United Arab Emirates and Mexico “to clarify” the origin, source, and purpose codes (these codes assigned to each wild animal transfer reveals the purpose of transfer, such as being of a scientific or commercial nature) of traded specimens highlighted by the CITES in its compliance report

India is developing an integrated electronic platform for the online processing, authentication and archiving of permits and certificates to ensure, among other things, traceability and data sharing with the CITES Trade Database. A national guidance on captive-breeding verification and record-keeping in adherence with CITES Resolutions is in the works too, India added.

India also assured the CITES that, as requested, it would submit progress reports of these measures before the 81st meeting of the CITES Standing Committee.

‘Not legal’

However, India made several “requests” of the CITES. 

One was that the CITES “acknowledge” that its recent compliance document (which listed recommendations for India) not be treated as a finalised report but as an “interim technical summary”.

Another was that the CITES “recognize the domestic judicial finality” established by India’s Supreme Court in its September 15 order. This is the order that absolved Vantara of any wrongdoing. This, along with the CITES mission not finding any evidence of illegal or commercial trade, and India’s current “Category-1 legislative status”, should be treated as “evidence of comprehensive national implementation in good faith”, India claimed. Category-1 legislative status under the CITES refers to any country that meets all four requirements for effective implementation of CITES provisions.

India also requested that the CITES “refrain” from adopting any measure such as recommending that India not import wild animals under Appendix-I of the Convention until it has reviewed its import procedures, and established due diligence in scrutinising export permits before issuing import permits based on these.

Such a measure would “constitute a de facto suspension or moratorium on lawful Appendix-I imports”, India said.

India also went a step further. 

It said that “any restrictive or punitive measure” — such as the CITES recommendation that India not import live wild animals until it reports on its due diligence processes would “lack legal foundation”. 

Such a recommendation would also be “inconsistent” with several CITES Resolutions too, India argued. 

While India’s response lists the said CITES resolutions (11.3, 12.3, 17.7 and 10.16), it does not specify which aspects of these resolutions it was referring to. (Each Resolution deals with several aspects including the need for CITES signatory countries to conduct due diligence in verifying permits.)

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.