September 18, 2025 • 26 mins
Firstly, The Indian Express’ National Legal Editor Apurva Vishwanath explains the Supreme Court’s decision to give Reliance Foundation’s Vantara project a clean chit and how it has now dismissed all complaints, citing the SIT’s report that found no legal violations and upheld the facility’s welfare standards.
Next, The Indian Express’ Anonna Dutt discusses a new initiative in Delhi that’s helping people navigate end-of-life care and enabling terminally ill patients to document their care preferences in advance. (10:10)
And in the end, we turn to the political controversy over voter roll deletions in Karnataka’s Aland constituency, where Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has accused the Election Commission of enabling mass deletions of votes, pointing to suspected software misuse and voter targeting. (22:29)
Hosted by Ichha Sharma
Written and produced by Shashank Bhargava and Ichha Sharma
Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar
Next, The Indian Express’ Anonna Dutt discusses a new initiative in Delhi that’s helping people navigate end-of-life care and enabling terminally ill patients to document their care preferences in advance. (10:10)
And in the end, we turn to the political controversy over voter roll deletions in Karnataka’s Aland constituency, where Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has accused the Election Commission of enabling mass deletions of votes, pointing to suspected software misuse and voter targeting. (22:29)
Hosted by Ichha Sharma
Written and produced by Shashank Bhargava and Ichha Sharma
Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
In this episode, we talk about a new clinic that
is helping people and their families make informed choices about
end of life care. We also talk about Rahul Gandhi
once again accusing the Election Commission of voter fraud and
other irregularities.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
But we begin today.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
By talking about the Supreme Court's decision to give Reliance
Foundations Wantara Project a clean chet.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Hi.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
I'm Atchasharma and you're listening to Three Things the ini
An Express New Show. It was only last month, on
the twenty fifth of August, that the Supreme Court had
set up a special investigation team to look into the
wide ranging allegations of animal smuggling, mistreatment, and financial irregularities
(00:52):
at Reliance Foundation's Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Center Wantara, Sprawled
within the green belt of Reliance is jam Nagger Refinery
Complex and Gujarat. The center is home to over two
thousand animals across forty three species, including more than two
hundred rescued elephants. Now, just three weeks after setting up
(01:12):
their siety, on Monday, the Court actually gave the project
a clean chit and closed all complaints against it, saying
that the aciety's exhaustive investigation had found no contravention in law.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
So because the Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Center that's in Jamnagar,
but DA has been under the spotlight because of the
huge promotion that has had from across the board.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
This is the Indian Express's National Legal editor, Apurva Vishwanath.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
You had Prime Minister Moody was at the place.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
You had this big inauguration of Wantara and the showcase
of it when Anantambani who runs the place was getting married.
So it's been under the spotlight for a while. And
they were a lot of these questions about theory mechanism
into how they acquired endangered species or wild animals. And
(02:05):
these are acquisition of animals that are happening from India
and abroad, particularly in India of elephants.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
What does the paperwork really to get these animals.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
So there are a lot of these questions and that's
perhaps how one of the PILs was filed in the
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had to look at
this issue.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Now, what's interesting to note is that according to the Sciety,
the facilities for animal welfare and care were found to
be of the highest international standards not merely adhering to,
but in several aspects exceeding the Central Zoo Authority benchmarks
in zoological management and conservation. So to talk more about
what their siety uncovered, how the court framed its ruling,
(02:44):
and why this vertic matters, we speak to Apova in
this segment. You spoke briefly about the project earlier and
the acquisitions that were made against it. So can you
tell us how this case played out.
Speaker 5 (02:57):
In the court.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
So what happened in the Supreme Court is public interest
litigation that was filed which said that you know, primary see,
many of these acquisitions of animals may not be lawful
or it needs to be investigated how they've been done,
and that's why.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
The court needs to look at this.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
But what is kind of curious about how things went
about in the Supreme Court is also the breakneck speed
at which.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Things kind of happened. You know.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
In the first hearing, the court did say that there
is no material to substantiate these allegations. The court said
that these are just media reports and there's nothing here
and you know, in the allegations. But in the next hearing,
the Supreme Court constituted an sit and this special investigative
team was headed by a former Supreme Court judge himself,
just as Chealameshwar, and the report was filed again on time.
(03:45):
In just a matter of a few weeks, we had
gone from the Supreme Court entertaining this issue at all
to the sit kind of giving a clean chit. And
then what is striking is the Supreme Court's directions following
that report, following the clean shit. And this is a
two judge bench, and the Court says that it has
no hesitation in accepting the conclusion drawn in the report
(04:08):
and no contravention of law has been reported by the
SIET and the complaints listed are closed. And the judges
also read out parts of what is in the report
and said all the acquisition of animals have been carried
out in regulatory compliance.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
There is no issue anywhere.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
So that is, whether there was any merit to the
allegation or not is a whole different issue.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
But you know, the Supreme Court, as we know, is
the highest court of the land.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
And when the Supreme Court says something, that is final
and conclusive. So now that the Supreme Court has said
that there is nothing here, it kind of forecloses or
it closes all the doors for any future investigation into
any of this or inquiry into any issue like that.
So the Supreme Court lending its weight to this issue,
(04:53):
that is, we'll have to see how that plays out
in future.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
And speaking about this high powered aciety, we know that
they were looking into multiple aspects like how endangered species
were acquired, what are the conditions they're living in, and
also the location of the center itself which is near
an industrial area.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
So do we know how.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Did the society conduct the investigation and also what were
its exact findings?
Speaker 4 (05:17):
Yeah, So, I mean the interesting thing is that the
court order records that you know, one that are made
available all the paperwork for the committee, and you know,
it did everything that it could, but we don't know
for sure really what transpired in these meetings because the
report of the committee is actually sealed envelope. Only parts
(05:38):
of it that is some operative portion is what was
kind of you know, disclosed by the judges, and the
judges say that based on the report, then we're going
to give our findings, so a detailed you know.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
What is the material that the committee looked into? And
you know, at the end of the day.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
This is a committee headed by IT, I judge, it's
not the actual regulatory mechanism that way if you see.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
So what really transpired within the committee we don't know.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
But the Court says that the report and annextures in
a pendrive be resealed and kept confidential and it can
only be provided to the respondent, which is Wantara. That
raises a lot of questions in terms of how the
Institution looks at these issues, especially because the question was
of accountability, and when you kind of shout that in secrecy,
(06:26):
it raises more questions than it answers. And in terms
of the order, what the Supreme Court has said following
that sit is that you know, any complaints petitions, which
could be newspaper articles, catalogs, anything, will just stand closed.
And then it goes on to say that no further
complaint of proceedings based on these allegations shall be entertained
(06:46):
before any judicial, statutory or administrative forum.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
And this kind of secures that finality.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
So all of these issues is where you know, the
Supreme Court really pushes the envelope and that raises more
questions in it answers.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
And were speaking about the barring of any future complaints.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Is that a standard practice?
Speaker 4 (07:07):
Yeah, so it is usually settled principle that on the
same set of allegations they can't be multiple proceedings. Right, So,
if the Supreme Court has looked at it, what are
the complaints that are mentioned raised in the pile, those
will have to be duly answered. But again we don't
know if the committee, the siit has gone into each
of those allegations, or if even the allegations.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Were well fleshed out.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
You know, we are talking about a pile petitioner here,
and this gentleman Jaskin, the petitioner, he is known to
file a lot of PILs routinely, So what are his
bona fides? What are the veracity of those complaints? That
is something that is unknown. And then based on that,
the Court saying that no further complaint.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Can be made.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
You know, that kind of has a chilling effect because tomorrow,
if anyone else wants to bring about a similar complaint,
that precludes them from doing it. And why this is
an issue is because the Court goes one step further
and says it's not just that no future complaints will
be entertained, but it also says that Wantara is free
to pursue its remedies and you know, ask for deletion
(08:10):
of any offending publication. So this kind of an order
which is essentially giving permission to seek gag orders right
at a time when the court has not even examined
what these offending publications are. That is a chilling effect
on free speech because you know, these kind of orders
can only be given once the court examines them and
(08:31):
decides that they are defamatory or they are misinformation, and
then they should be dealt with in any capacity. Right,
But the court saying that Wantara can go ahead and
do it, it's sort of presuming that all of this,
any reporting on Mantara is offending to the institution.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
So that is particularly problematic.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
And lastly, of course, what's interesting is that this case
moved surprisingly fast from PILs to the SIIT report to
the court's verdict, all within weeks.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Yeah, so you know what is interesting here is that
the observations of the court as well. Once the reporters
come and the court says that you know, now that
an independent body has found no foul play, let's not
make any unnecessary allegations, and this comment that just a
spunked mittal made in court said that there are certain
things which are probably the pride of this country and
(09:23):
they shouldn't be unnecessary hue and cry for the sake
of it. So these kind of observations from the court, again,
it's part of the chilling effect that I was mentioning earlier.
They preclude others from raising genuine questions.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Not just about wantara about any other private institution like
this right.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
It forecloses any credible reporting and has a really big
impact on how free.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Speech is exercised.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
And you know the speed that you mentioned for the
court itself, Yes, a lot of PILs are cases where
the Court really monitors.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
These issues and they take significant amount of time.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
The fact that the commissioning of the sit, the siits report,
and the Supreme Courts order all of them come in
just say a month, it did happen at a break
neck speed.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
And next we turn our attention to a subject that
most of us avoid thinking about until we are forced to.
For anyone who has cared for someone who is terminally ill,
they would know that the final days are often the hardest,
a time when people are perhaps suffering the most while
having the least agency over their lives. Caregivers to emotionally
(10:34):
exhausted and traumatized dread having to make decisions whether it
is to prolong life or hope for relief. Now it
is to give people agency over how they wish to
spend their last days. That hospitals have now started living
will clinics. Here people can talk openly about death with
their family members before reaching a critical stage and sign
(10:57):
a legal document outlining the kind of care they would
like to receive. One such clinic recently opened at Deli's Interpress,
the Polar Hospital, headed by doctor Shushma Buttnagar. In this segment,
my colleague Sushang Bhargav speaks to the Innu expresses Anonadat,
who reported on it for the paper Anona.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
One of the hardest things to talk about, and many
of our listeners would agree, is how one wishes to die.
In fact, thinking about how one wants to spend the
very last days of their lives is a very difficult thing,
and especially to do that with your loved ones, right.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
It is very difficult and it's not a conversation we
usually have in our homes, so most people are very
ill prepared for. You know, in case they have a
terminal illness, then you know what needs to be done.
Usually the children are not prepared, or anybody in their
home because the last wishes are not known, like what
(11:57):
would they like to happen in case? They are not
in a condition to make those decisions.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
And that makes sense because you know, we go through
life avoiding any conversations around death. You know, no one
really wants to think about their own mortality or the
mortality of their loved ones. And this is true for
most people in general. But are doctors prepared to have
that conversation.
Speaker 6 (12:22):
So, no, they are not because they're not taught to
think about end of life. Most doctors know how to,
you know, keep you alive, and they will try to
keep you alive by all the means that they have,
but that might not be something you would wish for
or your family would wish for.
Speaker 5 (12:43):
And of course, now it is slowly changing.
Speaker 6 (12:46):
People are realizing that there is no use in doing
certain treatments. When you know that you know the person
will not be cured or will not be able to
go back home, then there's no point in doing certain treatments.
So this awareness is coming slowly, but yes, you're right.
Doctors are also not prepared to have this death conversation usually.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
And you know, in scenarios related to terminal illnesses and
cancer especially, there is a big downside when your doctor
does not know how to have that conversation. We've all
heard of cases where sometimes people go through multiple rounds
of chemotherapy because the family, of course wants the person
to continue living, but doctors, perhaps because they're uncomfortable to
(13:32):
have that conversation, continue to recommend the treatment that takes
an immense toll on one's body.
Speaker 6 (13:40):
So if you ask most patients who have a terminal disease,
they would want to be comfortable. I mean, of course
it would depend on from person to person, but most
people would wish to be comfortable in their homes with
their loved ones. They would not want to be constantly
in hospitals. And you know, if you are talking about chemotherapy,
that itself takes a lot of toll on the health.
(14:02):
So you are having these reactions like you're puking and
you're feeling weak, there's no energy. All of that happens
when you're doing your chemo, and if at the end
of that there is no hope of survival, A lot
of patients would not want to go through that.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Right. In presenting other options to patients beyond just the
obvious ones and talking about the quality of life rather
than just prolonging life, that is a tough conversation and
it is perhaps to facilitate these conversations that doctor Sushma
but Nagar has started this Living Will clinic in Delhi
(14:42):
and she's someone who deals in palliative and end of
life care.
Speaker 6 (14:46):
Right, So her journey actually started as a anesthesiologist in
the cancer department at AIMS and she then went on
to do a course abroad on palliative care. Once she
came back, she realized that we do not have that
sort of system in place. And when I talk about
palliative care, that doesn't necessarily have to be end of
(15:09):
life care. But also you know cancer patients who are
going through the treatment, how to make them more comfortable.
So the department that's there she used to be at
AMS and she's now moved to Apolo. So the department
that she started in AIMES also helps patients.
Speaker 5 (15:26):
So for example, if a patient.
Speaker 6 (15:28):
Is traveling from say be Hard to Aims for their
treatment cancer treatment, they would teach the family on how
to take care of the pots that are created, of
how to with the nasal feeding, how to take care
of say bed sorees and things like that. So just
all around making a patient comfortable while they are going
(15:49):
through the treatment.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
And also in case they are terminal, at what point
you know, you.
Speaker 6 (15:54):
Should stop the treatment and then just go into pain management,
so that could be chemotherapy or or you know, just
morphine for the pain. So all of that, they walk
the family through the entire treatment plan. That's what they
have been doing, and in doing so they realize that,
you know, if you have the right to live with dignity,
you should also have the right to die with dignity.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
And so talk about how does this clinic work, How
does it equip both patients and their families to deal
with these kinds of situations and manage the last days
of one's life.
Speaker 6 (16:29):
So ideally you would be going to this clinic before
it's the last days of your life. The whole point
of the clinic is to help patients and their family
members discuss death, and that in itself is a very
difficult topic.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
So first you have to talk about death.
Speaker 6 (16:45):
Then the clinic also helps them understand terminologies like cardiopulmonary
resuscitation CPR. They would also talk about whether you know
you should be going through chemotherapy, radiation, do you need
I WE, do you need nutrition? All of these things
they would explain. They would tell you what happens if
(17:05):
you withdraw this, what happens.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
If you keep going.
Speaker 6 (17:08):
They would give you a realistic picture about whatever condition
you have, and then you can make your choice whether
you would want to be put on ventilator, whether you
would want to receive the IV that the doctors give you,
whether you would want to have you know, the doctors
revive you if you know that you're terminal. So all
of this conversation and once you've made a decision, once
(17:32):
you've discussed this with your family members, there's also a
template that the clinic offers, where it's an eight page
document in which people can actually choose what kind of
treatment they would need in the end of the life.
They can also choose the hospital that they would like
to be treated, whether they would want to be in
a hospital, hospice, or at home. They can make that choice.
(17:54):
They can also choose a proxy who would be eligible
to take all medical decisions on their behalf when they're
not in a condition to make those decisions.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Yeah, and the other thing you write about is that
they've made the space open and welcoming to all kinds
of people.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
Right, So there's also some pointers with say that, Okay,
this is the gender I would like to be referred
to during my treatment, so the staff would then have
to go with that. They can also designate a person
saying that this person is my partner and you have
to refer to them as such. And these were included
(18:32):
in the format to make it more inclusive for LGBTQ
people and couples, and you know, you have all of
these choices that you can make. It gets notarized and
it's a legal document, so it's a legally binding So
a lot of times what happens people would put you
on ventilator or would not take you off ventilator because
there is no legal guidance on what you would want
(18:56):
or what your family will want. Sometimes there is a
disagree within the family. So all of this gets salved
when you have this legal document in place.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
And this legal document, even though it will be made
in Delhi in Apollo, this would obviously be valid no
matter where you go right.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
Yes, you can just go with that and the doctors
would have to follow your wish.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
And you know, I don't want to conflate the two terms.
But how closely is this related to euthanasia for example?
Speaker 6 (19:28):
Ah, So the current legal definition there is actually it
makes a distinction between active euthanasian and passive euthanasia.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
So active euthanasia would be something like.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
A physician assistant suicide, where they actually give you an
ingredient that would hasten death. And passive euthanasia is what
where you could withdraw certain care that you wouldn't want.
And yes, to a certain degree, this is what it
is where you know that you know if going on
a ventilator would not you know, cure you or help
(19:59):
you get better in some time, there's no point going
on that because then you're just stuck in the hospital.
Speaker 5 (20:06):
And you can't go home. You can't be with your family.
Speaker 6 (20:08):
I c use your family can meet you for one
hour a day, so that's the kind of care you
can refuse and you can go home. And yes, so
this sort of helps you with say, passive euthanasia in
that way.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
And also who all can go to this clinic?
Speaker 6 (20:26):
Absolutely anybody even if you're not terminal, you can just
go there. You can have this discussion with your family
and you can put that down in your living will
so that in case something happens. And the thing with
this is if you meet with an accident, for example,
it also has you know, one of the pointers actually
asks whether you would like to be an organ dona.
Speaker 5 (20:47):
So of course.
Speaker 6 (20:49):
Cancers and things, these are things that you get a
diagnosis and then you have some time to discuss the
end of life care with your family.
Speaker 5 (20:56):
But if you meet with an accident, that's not the case.
Speaker 6 (20:59):
So you can just go any time and have this
in place, even if you do not have a terminal disease,
or even if you're not very old.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
Anybody can go.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
And also how long has this clinic been there for
and what have been some of the reactions to it.
Speaker 6 (21:16):
So the clinic hasn't been there for long I think
a week at most, but I mean not with the document.
But doctor Sushma has been helping the patients with you know,
like I mentioned end of life care where you know,
they have this discussion with the family, give them realistic
what can happen, what can't happen.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
All of those things she has been doing.
Speaker 6 (21:38):
And in fact, for the story, I spoke to a
few patients of us whose father or wife had passed away,
and they were talking about this whole guilt that comes
with making a decision like that on their behalf, but
because of the guidance that they received, they were able
to do that.
Speaker 5 (21:59):
And one of the since.
Speaker 6 (22:00):
Whose wife just thirty two years old passed away with
stomach cancer, he in fact said that he was very
happy because his wife could be home, spend the entire
day with the children watching television, and when she.
Speaker 5 (22:14):
Passed away, she passed away with a smile.
Speaker 6 (22:16):
So what the patient said was it would have been
so much better had they had the discussion before. If
there was a paperwork laying down clear terms on you know,
what should be done in these cases, that would have
been of great help.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
And in the end, we talk about the continuing political
tensions over voter role accuracy. Yesterday, Leader of Opposition Rahul
Gandhi accused the Election Commission of protecting.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Those undermining Indian democracy.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
At a press conference, he pointed to alleged irregularities in
Karnataka's Allan constituency, claiming that at least six thousand votes
were deleted during the twenty twenty three elections.
Speaker 7 (23:00):
Alan Is constituency in Karnataka. Six eighteen votes. Somebody tried
to delete six thousand and eighteen votes. We don't know
the total number of votes that were deleted in land
in the twenty three election. They're much higher than six
(23:20):
and eighteen. But somebody got caught deleting six eighteen votes,
and it was caught, like most crimes, by a coincidence.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
According to Gandhi, the deletions were uncovered when a booth
level officer or BLO noticed that her uncle's name was
missing from the electoral role. On checking, she found that
her neighbour's name had been misused to authorize deletion, even
though neither she nor the neighbor had ever applied for it.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Now.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Gandhi further alleged that deletion requests targeting Congress supporters were
generated using software from outside Karnataka.
Speaker 7 (24:00):
So someone ran an automated program that enshored the first
voter of the booth was the applicant. That same person
got cell phones from outside the state used them to
file the application. And we are pretty certain that this
(24:21):
was done in a centralized manner, and it was done
at scale. This was not done in a you know,
at a worker level. This was done at a coal
center level.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Meanwhile, the Election Commission rejected these allegations as incorrect and baseless.
In its response, the EASY confirmed that irregularities had indeed
been detected in Aland in twenty twenty three, but emphasized
that the Commission itself had filed an FIR to investigate
the matter. It also clarified that no voter deletions can
(24:53):
be carried out online by the public, as Gandhi had suggested.
According to Election Commission rules, applications to delete names from
electoral roles can be made through Form seven by any
lector in a constituency or by a BLO. Deletion can
be sought on grounds such as death or relocation of
the voter. Blo's Typically, local officials like teachers or anganwadi
(25:17):
workers are tasked with field verification. The process requires issuing
notices and providing an opportunity for the affected individual to
respond before any deletion is finalized. For those who may
not know already, The Alan controversy first surfaced in twenty
twenty three when a voter complained that his family's names
(25:37):
were marked for deletion despite still residing in the same constituency.
The Congress party at the time had said it would
file complaints about Allan and other constituencies, while the EC
highlighted that it had initiated the police case itself. In
its guidelines, the EC has stated that the integrity of
the electoral role is maintained through multiple layers of verification,
(25:59):
with blos and field level verifying officers playing key roles. Deletion,
it says, cannot be finalized without hearings and ensuring due process.
You were listening to Three Things by the Indian Express.
Today's show was edited and mixed by Svar and produced
by Shishang Hargov and me Ichasharma. If you like the show,
(26:21):
do subscribe to us wherever you get your podcast. You
can also recommend it to someone you think may like it,
with a friend or in your family. This is the
best way for people to get to know about us.
You can also tweet us at Express podcast or write
to us at podcast at Indian Express dot com.
In this episode, we talk about a new clinic that
is helping people and their families make informed choices about
end of life care. We also talk about Rahul Gandhi
once again accusing the Election Commission of voter fraud and
other irregularities.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
But we begin today.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
By talking about the Supreme Court's decision to give Reliance
Foundations Wantara Project a clean chet.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Hi.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
I'm Atchasharma and you're listening to Three Things the ini
An Express New Show. It was only last month, on
the twenty fifth of August, that the Supreme Court had
set up a special investigation team to look into the
wide ranging allegations of animal smuggling, mistreatment, and financial irregularities
(00:52):
at Reliance Foundation's Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Center Wantara, Sprawled
within the green belt of Reliance is jam Nagger Refinery
Complex and Gujarat. The center is home to over two
thousand animals across forty three species, including more than two
hundred rescued elephants. Now, just three weeks after setting up
(01:12):
their siety, on Monday, the Court actually gave the project
a clean chit and closed all complaints against it, saying
that the aciety's exhaustive investigation had found no contravention in law.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
So because the Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Center that's in Jamnagar,
but DA has been under the spotlight because of the
huge promotion that has had from across the board.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
This is the Indian Express's National Legal editor, Apurva Vishwanath.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
You had Prime Minister Moody was at the place.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
You had this big inauguration of Wantara and the showcase
of it when Anantambani who runs the place was getting married.
So it's been under the spotlight for a while. And
they were a lot of these questions about theory mechanism
into how they acquired endangered species or wild animals. And
(02:05):
these are acquisition of animals that are happening from India
and abroad, particularly in India of elephants.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
What does the paperwork really to get these animals.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
So there are a lot of these questions and that's
perhaps how one of the PILs was filed in the
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had to look at
this issue.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Now, what's interesting to note is that according to the Sciety,
the facilities for animal welfare and care were found to
be of the highest international standards not merely adhering to,
but in several aspects exceeding the Central Zoo Authority benchmarks
in zoological management and conservation. So to talk more about
what their siety uncovered, how the court framed its ruling,
(02:44):
and why this vertic matters, we speak to Apova in
this segment. You spoke briefly about the project earlier and
the acquisitions that were made against it. So can you
tell us how this case played out.
Speaker 5 (02:57):
In the court.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
So what happened in the Supreme Court is public interest
litigation that was filed which said that you know, primary see,
many of these acquisitions of animals may not be lawful
or it needs to be investigated how they've been done,
and that's why.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
The court needs to look at this.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
But what is kind of curious about how things went
about in the Supreme Court is also the breakneck speed
at which.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Things kind of happened. You know.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
In the first hearing, the court did say that there
is no material to substantiate these allegations. The court said
that these are just media reports and there's nothing here
and you know, in the allegations. But in the next hearing,
the Supreme Court constituted an sit and this special investigative
team was headed by a former Supreme Court judge himself,
just as Chealameshwar, and the report was filed again on time.
(03:45):
In just a matter of a few weeks, we had
gone from the Supreme Court entertaining this issue at all
to the sit kind of giving a clean chit. And
then what is striking is the Supreme Court's directions following
that report, following the clean shit. And this is a
two judge bench, and the Court says that it has
no hesitation in accepting the conclusion drawn in the report
(04:08):
and no contravention of law has been reported by the
SIET and the complaints listed are closed. And the judges
also read out parts of what is in the report
and said all the acquisition of animals have been carried
out in regulatory compliance.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
There is no issue anywhere.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
So that is, whether there was any merit to the
allegation or not is a whole different issue.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
But you know, the Supreme Court, as we know, is
the highest court of the land.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
And when the Supreme Court says something, that is final
and conclusive. So now that the Supreme Court has said
that there is nothing here, it kind of forecloses or
it closes all the doors for any future investigation into
any of this or inquiry into any issue like that.
So the Supreme Court lending its weight to this issue,
(04:53):
that is, we'll have to see how that plays out
in future.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
And speaking about this high powered aciety, we know that
they were looking into multiple aspects like how endangered species
were acquired, what are the conditions they're living in, and
also the location of the center itself which is near
an industrial area.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
So do we know how.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Did the society conduct the investigation and also what were
its exact findings?
Speaker 4 (05:17):
Yeah, So, I mean the interesting thing is that the
court order records that you know, one that are made
available all the paperwork for the committee, and you know,
it did everything that it could, but we don't know
for sure really what transpired in these meetings because the
report of the committee is actually sealed envelope. Only parts
(05:38):
of it that is some operative portion is what was
kind of you know, disclosed by the judges, and the
judges say that based on the report, then we're going
to give our findings, so a detailed you know.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
What is the material that the committee looked into? And
you know, at the end of the day.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
This is a committee headed by IT, I judge, it's
not the actual regulatory mechanism that way if you see.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
So what really transpired within the committee we don't know.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
But the Court says that the report and annextures in
a pendrive be resealed and kept confidential and it can
only be provided to the respondent, which is Wantara. That
raises a lot of questions in terms of how the
Institution looks at these issues, especially because the question was
of accountability, and when you kind of shout that in secrecy,
(06:26):
it raises more questions than it answers. And in terms
of the order, what the Supreme Court has said following
that sit is that you know, any complaints petitions, which
could be newspaper articles, catalogs, anything, will just stand closed.
And then it goes on to say that no further
complaint of proceedings based on these allegations shall be entertained
(06:46):
before any judicial, statutory or administrative forum.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
And this kind of secures that finality.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
So all of these issues is where you know, the
Supreme Court really pushes the envelope and that raises more
questions in it answers.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
And were speaking about the barring of any future complaints.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Is that a standard practice?
Speaker 4 (07:07):
Yeah, so it is usually settled principle that on the
same set of allegations they can't be multiple proceedings. Right, So,
if the Supreme Court has looked at it, what are
the complaints that are mentioned raised in the pile, those
will have to be duly answered. But again we don't
know if the committee, the siit has gone into each
of those allegations, or if even the allegations.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Were well fleshed out.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
You know, we are talking about a pile petitioner here,
and this gentleman Jaskin, the petitioner, he is known to
file a lot of PILs routinely, So what are his
bona fides? What are the veracity of those complaints? That
is something that is unknown. And then based on that,
the Court saying that no further complaint.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Can be made.
Speaker 4 (07:49):
You know, that kind of has a chilling effect because tomorrow,
if anyone else wants to bring about a similar complaint,
that precludes them from doing it. And why this is
an issue is because the Court goes one step further
and says it's not just that no future complaints will
be entertained, but it also says that Wantara is free
to pursue its remedies and you know, ask for deletion
(08:10):
of any offending publication. So this kind of an order
which is essentially giving permission to seek gag orders right
at a time when the court has not even examined
what these offending publications are. That is a chilling effect
on free speech because you know, these kind of orders
can only be given once the court examines them and
(08:31):
decides that they are defamatory or they are misinformation, and
then they should be dealt with in any capacity. Right,
But the court saying that Wantara can go ahead and
do it, it's sort of presuming that all of this,
any reporting on Mantara is offending to the institution.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
So that is particularly problematic.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
And lastly, of course, what's interesting is that this case
moved surprisingly fast from PILs to the SIIT report to
the court's verdict, all within weeks.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Yeah, so you know what is interesting here is that
the observations of the court as well. Once the reporters
come and the court says that you know, now that
an independent body has found no foul play, let's not
make any unnecessary allegations, and this comment that just a
spunked mittal made in court said that there are certain
things which are probably the pride of this country and
(09:23):
they shouldn't be unnecessary hue and cry for the sake
of it. So these kind of observations from the court, again,
it's part of the chilling effect that I was mentioning earlier.
They preclude others from raising genuine questions.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
Not just about wantara about any other private institution like
this right.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
It forecloses any credible reporting and has a really big
impact on how free.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Speech is exercised.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
And you know the speed that you mentioned for the
court itself, Yes, a lot of PILs are cases where
the Court really monitors.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
These issues and they take significant amount of time.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
The fact that the commissioning of the sit, the siits report,
and the Supreme Courts order all of them come in
just say a month, it did happen at a break
neck speed.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
And next we turn our attention to a subject that
most of us avoid thinking about until we are forced to.
For anyone who has cared for someone who is terminally ill,
they would know that the final days are often the hardest,
a time when people are perhaps suffering the most while
having the least agency over their lives. Caregivers to emotionally
(10:34):
exhausted and traumatized dread having to make decisions whether it
is to prolong life or hope for relief. Now it
is to give people agency over how they wish to
spend their last days. That hospitals have now started living
will clinics. Here people can talk openly about death with
their family members before reaching a critical stage and sign
(10:57):
a legal document outlining the kind of care they would
like to receive. One such clinic recently opened at Deli's Interpress,
the Polar Hospital, headed by doctor Shushma Buttnagar. In this segment,
my colleague Sushang Bhargav speaks to the Innu expresses Anonadat,
who reported on it for the paper Anona.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
One of the hardest things to talk about, and many
of our listeners would agree, is how one wishes to die.
In fact, thinking about how one wants to spend the
very last days of their lives is a very difficult thing,
and especially to do that with your loved ones, right.
Speaker 6 (11:37):
It is very difficult and it's not a conversation we
usually have in our homes, so most people are very
ill prepared for. You know, in case they have a
terminal illness, then you know what needs to be done.
Usually the children are not prepared, or anybody in their
home because the last wishes are not known, like what
(11:57):
would they like to happen in case? They are not
in a condition to make those decisions.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
And that makes sense because you know, we go through
life avoiding any conversations around death. You know, no one
really wants to think about their own mortality or the
mortality of their loved ones. And this is true for
most people in general. But are doctors prepared to have
that conversation.
Speaker 6 (12:22):
So, no, they are not because they're not taught to
think about end of life. Most doctors know how to,
you know, keep you alive, and they will try to
keep you alive by all the means that they have,
but that might not be something you would wish for
or your family would wish for.
Speaker 5 (12:43):
And of course, now it is slowly changing.
Speaker 6 (12:46):
People are realizing that there is no use in doing
certain treatments. When you know that you know the person
will not be cured or will not be able to
go back home, then there's no point in doing certain treatments.
So this awareness is coming slowly, but yes, you're right.
Doctors are also not prepared to have this death conversation usually.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
And you know, in scenarios related to terminal illnesses and
cancer especially, there is a big downside when your doctor
does not know how to have that conversation. We've all
heard of cases where sometimes people go through multiple rounds
of chemotherapy because the family, of course wants the person
to continue living, but doctors, perhaps because they're uncomfortable to
(13:32):
have that conversation, continue to recommend the treatment that takes
an immense toll on one's body.
Speaker 6 (13:40):
So if you ask most patients who have a terminal disease,
they would want to be comfortable. I mean, of course
it would depend on from person to person, but most
people would wish to be comfortable in their homes with
their loved ones. They would not want to be constantly
in hospitals. And you know, if you are talking about chemotherapy,
that itself takes a lot of toll on the health.
(14:02):
So you are having these reactions like you're puking and
you're feeling weak, there's no energy. All of that happens
when you're doing your chemo, and if at the end
of that there is no hope of survival, A lot
of patients would not want to go through that.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Right. In presenting other options to patients beyond just the
obvious ones and talking about the quality of life rather
than just prolonging life, that is a tough conversation and
it is perhaps to facilitate these conversations that doctor Sushma
but Nagar has started this Living Will clinic in Delhi
(14:42):
and she's someone who deals in palliative and end of
life care.
Speaker 6 (14:46):
Right, So her journey actually started as a anesthesiologist in
the cancer department at AIMS and she then went on
to do a course abroad on palliative care. Once she
came back, she realized that we do not have that
sort of system in place. And when I talk about
palliative care, that doesn't necessarily have to be end of
(15:09):
life care. But also you know cancer patients who are
going through the treatment, how to make them more comfortable.
So the department that's there she used to be at
AMS and she's now moved to Apolo. So the department
that she started in AIMES also helps patients.
Speaker 5 (15:26):
So for example, if a patient.
Speaker 6 (15:28):
Is traveling from say be Hard to Aims for their
treatment cancer treatment, they would teach the family on how
to take care of the pots that are created, of
how to with the nasal feeding, how to take care
of say bed sorees and things like that. So just
all around making a patient comfortable while they are going
(15:49):
through the treatment.
Speaker 5 (15:50):
And also in case they are terminal, at what point
you know, you.
Speaker 6 (15:54):
Should stop the treatment and then just go into pain management,
so that could be chemotherapy or or you know, just
morphine for the pain. So all of that, they walk
the family through the entire treatment plan. That's what they
have been doing, and in doing so they realize that,
you know, if you have the right to live with dignity,
you should also have the right to die with dignity.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
And so talk about how does this clinic work, How
does it equip both patients and their families to deal
with these kinds of situations and manage the last days
of one's life.
Speaker 6 (16:29):
So ideally you would be going to this clinic before
it's the last days of your life. The whole point
of the clinic is to help patients and their family
members discuss death, and that in itself is a very
difficult topic.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
So first you have to talk about death.
Speaker 6 (16:45):
Then the clinic also helps them understand terminologies like cardiopulmonary
resuscitation CPR. They would also talk about whether you know
you should be going through chemotherapy, radiation, do you need
I WE, do you need nutrition? All of these things
they would explain. They would tell you what happens if
(17:05):
you withdraw this, what happens.
Speaker 5 (17:07):
If you keep going.
Speaker 6 (17:08):
They would give you a realistic picture about whatever condition
you have, and then you can make your choice whether
you would want to be put on ventilator, whether you
would want to receive the IV that the doctors give you,
whether you would want to have you know, the doctors
revive you if you know that you're terminal. So all
of this conversation and once you've made a decision, once
(17:32):
you've discussed this with your family members, there's also a
template that the clinic offers, where it's an eight page
document in which people can actually choose what kind of
treatment they would need in the end of the life.
They can also choose the hospital that they would like
to be treated, whether they would want to be in
a hospital, hospice, or at home. They can make that choice.
(17:54):
They can also choose a proxy who would be eligible
to take all medical decisions on their behalf when they're
not in a condition to make those decisions.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Yeah, and the other thing you write about is that
they've made the space open and welcoming to all kinds
of people.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
Right, So there's also some pointers with say that, Okay,
this is the gender I would like to be referred
to during my treatment, so the staff would then have
to go with that. They can also designate a person
saying that this person is my partner and you have
to refer to them as such. And these were included
(18:32):
in the format to make it more inclusive for LGBTQ
people and couples, and you know, you have all of
these choices that you can make. It gets notarized and
it's a legal document, so it's a legally binding So
a lot of times what happens people would put you
on ventilator or would not take you off ventilator because
there is no legal guidance on what you would want
(18:56):
or what your family will want. Sometimes there is a
disagree within the family. So all of this gets salved
when you have this legal document in place.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
And this legal document, even though it will be made
in Delhi in Apollo, this would obviously be valid no
matter where you go right.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
Yes, you can just go with that and the doctors
would have to follow your wish.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
And you know, I don't want to conflate the two terms.
But how closely is this related to euthanasia for example?
Speaker 6 (19:28):
Ah, So the current legal definition there is actually it
makes a distinction between active euthanasian and passive euthanasia.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
So active euthanasia would be something like.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
A physician assistant suicide, where they actually give you an
ingredient that would hasten death. And passive euthanasia is what
where you could withdraw certain care that you wouldn't want.
And yes, to a certain degree, this is what it
is where you know that you know if going on
a ventilator would not you know, cure you or help
(19:59):
you get better in some time, there's no point going
on that because then you're just stuck in the hospital.
Speaker 5 (20:06):
And you can't go home. You can't be with your family.
Speaker 6 (20:08):
I c use your family can meet you for one
hour a day, so that's the kind of care you
can refuse and you can go home. And yes, so
this sort of helps you with say, passive euthanasia in
that way.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
And also who all can go to this clinic?
Speaker 6 (20:26):
Absolutely anybody even if you're not terminal, you can just
go there. You can have this discussion with your family
and you can put that down in your living will
so that in case something happens. And the thing with
this is if you meet with an accident, for example,
it also has you know, one of the pointers actually
asks whether you would like to be an organ dona.
Speaker 5 (20:47):
So of course.
Speaker 6 (20:49):
Cancers and things, these are things that you get a
diagnosis and then you have some time to discuss the
end of life care with your family.
Speaker 5 (20:56):
But if you meet with an accident, that's not the case.
Speaker 6 (20:59):
So you can just go any time and have this
in place, even if you do not have a terminal disease,
or even if you're not very old.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
Anybody can go.
Speaker 3 (21:09):
And also how long has this clinic been there for
and what have been some of the reactions to it.
Speaker 6 (21:16):
So the clinic hasn't been there for long I think
a week at most, but I mean not with the document.
But doctor Sushma has been helping the patients with you know,
like I mentioned end of life care where you know,
they have this discussion with the family, give them realistic
what can happen, what can't happen.
Speaker 5 (21:36):
All of those things she has been doing.
Speaker 6 (21:38):
And in fact, for the story, I spoke to a
few patients of us whose father or wife had passed away,
and they were talking about this whole guilt that comes
with making a decision like that on their behalf, but
because of the guidance that they received, they were able
to do that.
Speaker 5 (21:59):
And one of the since.
Speaker 6 (22:00):
Whose wife just thirty two years old passed away with
stomach cancer, he in fact said that he was very
happy because his wife could be home, spend the entire
day with the children watching television, and when she.
Speaker 5 (22:14):
Passed away, she passed away with a smile.
Speaker 6 (22:16):
So what the patient said was it would have been
so much better had they had the discussion before. If
there was a paperwork laying down clear terms on you know,
what should be done in these cases, that would have
been of great help.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
And in the end, we talk about the continuing political
tensions over voter role accuracy. Yesterday, Leader of Opposition Rahul
Gandhi accused the Election Commission of protecting.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Those undermining Indian democracy.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
At a press conference, he pointed to alleged irregularities in
Karnataka's Allan constituency, claiming that at least six thousand votes
were deleted during the twenty twenty three elections.
Speaker 7 (23:00):
Alan Is constituency in Karnataka. Six eighteen votes. Somebody tried
to delete six thousand and eighteen votes. We don't know
the total number of votes that were deleted in land
in the twenty three election. They're much higher than six
(23:20):
and eighteen. But somebody got caught deleting six eighteen votes,
and it was caught, like most crimes, by a coincidence.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
According to Gandhi, the deletions were uncovered when a booth
level officer or BLO noticed that her uncle's name was
missing from the electoral role. On checking, she found that
her neighbour's name had been misused to authorize deletion, even
though neither she nor the neighbor had ever applied for it.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Now.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Gandhi further alleged that deletion requests targeting Congress supporters were
generated using software from outside Karnataka.
Speaker 7 (24:00):
So someone ran an automated program that enshored the first
voter of the booth was the applicant. That same person
got cell phones from outside the state used them to
file the application. And we are pretty certain that this
(24:21):
was done in a centralized manner, and it was done
at scale. This was not done in a you know,
at a worker level. This was done at a coal
center level.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Meanwhile, the Election Commission rejected these allegations as incorrect and baseless.
In its response, the EASY confirmed that irregularities had indeed
been detected in Aland in twenty twenty three, but emphasized
that the Commission itself had filed an FIR to investigate
the matter. It also clarified that no voter deletions can
(24:53):
be carried out online by the public, as Gandhi had suggested.
According to Election Commission rules, applications to delete names from
electoral roles can be made through Form seven by any
lector in a constituency or by a BLO. Deletion can
be sought on grounds such as death or relocation of
the voter. Blo's Typically, local officials like teachers or anganwadi
(25:17):
workers are tasked with field verification. The process requires issuing
notices and providing an opportunity for the affected individual to
respond before any deletion is finalized. For those who may
not know already, The Alan controversy first surfaced in twenty
twenty three when a voter complained that his family's names
(25:37):
were marked for deletion despite still residing in the same constituency.
The Congress party at the time had said it would
file complaints about Allan and other constituencies, while the EC
highlighted that it had initiated the police case itself. In
its guidelines, the EC has stated that the integrity of
the electoral role is maintained through multiple layers of verification,
(25:59):
with blos and field level verifying officers playing key roles. Deletion,
it says, cannot be finalized without hearings and ensuring due process.
You were listening to Three Things by the Indian Express.
Today's show was edited and mixed by Svar and produced
by Shishang Hargov and me Ichasharma. If you like the show,
(26:21):
do subscribe to us wherever you get your podcast. You
can also recommend it to someone you think may like it,
with a friend or in your family. This is the
best way for people to get to know about us.
You can also tweet us at Express podcast or write
to us at podcast at Indian Express dot com.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.