Delhi High Court Rejects Contempt Plea Over Allegations Of Ill-Treatment To Animals In Ambani Wedding, Calls Out "Sensational Journalism"

The Delhi High Court has recently rejected a contempt plea filed by a lawyer over allegations that inhumane and ill-treatment was meted out to animals in industrialist Mukesh Ambani's son Anant Ambani's pre-wedding celebrations in Jamnagar, Gujarat.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed the contempt plea which alleged wilful disobedience of a division bench's order of February 12.

The initial plea was moved by the lawyer before the division bench in the backdrop of a newspaper report published in the Economic Times on January 13 regarding use of animals in the Ambani wedding.

The division bench had said that the High Powered Committee, constituted on directions of Tripura High Court, will be at liberty to oversee the event and to take all cautions permissible under law, if any, to ensure that no inhumane behaviour is caused to the animals.

The contempt plea was moved alleging that despite judicial directions, inhumane treatment was meted out to animals in the wedding functions on March 01 to March 03. The lawyer had relied on the article titled “The costs of Reliance's wildlife ambitions” published in online platform Himal Southasian on March 20.

Vantara is a 3,000-acre facility that houses a variety of wildlife, including animals rescued from circuses and zoos. Petitioner said wide range of illegalities were committed by the entities who were in-charge of the animals.

Dismissing the plea, the court found no cause of action or foundation so as to find prima facie commission of any inhumane or cruel treatment meted out to the animals.

“Even the purported article, the narrative of which has been placed on the record does not ipso facto lead to an inference that any illegal, sordid or wanton acts of cruelty to the animals were found to have been undertaken on the part of respondents No. 3 and 4 through the course of the wedding event which was organized on the aforesaid dates,” the court said.

However, it added that the Himal Southasian article, prima facie, appeared to have all the “trappings of sensationalism in journalism.”

“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 court said.

It said that neither the contents of the article nor the excerpts of the documents as well as material from social media vested in the article constituted cogent or legally cognizable material.

Calling it misguided and ill-conceived petition, the court said that the allegations levelled against the HPC in not carrying its task were utterly in bad taste, unsavoury and unpalatable.

“The petitioner has been warned to be careful before making such scandalous allegations against the HPC which is chaired by a former Judge of the Supreme Court besides other experts and senior officers by designation,” the court said.

It added: “In the end, although this is a fit case where the present petition be dismissed with exemplary costs upon the petitioner, however, since he is a practicing advocate, he is impressed upon to desist from filing such frivolous petitions in the future.”

Title: RAHUL NARULA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 963

Click Here To Read Order