The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a contempt plea brought by a lawyer, which accused industrialist Mukesh Ambani's son, Anant Ambani, of subjecting animals to inhumane treatment during his pre-wedding celebrations in Jamnagar, Gujarat.

The bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed the contempt plea, which alleged willful disobedience of a division bench's order dated February 12. The original plea had been filed by the lawyer before the division bench, following a January 13 newspaper report in the Economic Times that highlighted the use of animals in the Ambani wedding celebrations.

The division bench had stated that the High Powered Committee, established under the directions of the Tripura High Court, was authorized to oversee the event and to take all legally permissible precautions to ensure that no inhumane treatment of animals occurred.

The contempt plea was filed on the grounds that, despite judicial directions, animals were subjected to inhumane treatment during the wedding functions held from March 1 to March 3. The lawyer based the plea on an article titled “The Costs of Reliance's Wildlife Ambitions,” which was published on March 20 on the online platform Himal Southasian.

Vantara is a 3,000-acre facility that shelters various wildlife, including animals rescued from circuses and zoos. The petitioner claimed that a range of illegalities were committed by the entities responsible for the care of these animals.

In dismissing the plea, the court found no grounds or evidence to support a prima facie case of inhumane or cruel treatment of 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, the court noted that the Himal Southasian article appeared to have the "trappings of sensationalism in journalism," suggesting that it might not have provided a balanced or accurate portrayal of the situation.

“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.

The court stated that neither the content of the article nor the excerpts from documents and social media material included in it constituted cogent or legally recognizable evidence. Describing the petition as misguided and ill-conceived, the court criticized the allegations against the High Powered Committee (HPC) for failing in its duties as utterly in bad taste, unsavory, 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.