Till recently, animal rights jurisprudence in India was largely limited to a few Directive principles in the Constitution and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960..However, the 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja was a watershed moment as it delved into animal rights jurisprudence like never before..The judgment also resulted in a spurt in litigation in Supreme Court surrounding animal rights. The growing presence and work of various NGOs in the country have also given an impetus to rights of animals..The Supreme Court of India is seeing a lot of litigation these days on issues affecting animal rights, with a number of Article 32 writ petitions being filed. Below is a list of five important cases in Supreme Court involving fight for rights of animals..Jallikattu.Case: Compassion Unlimited Plus Action v. Union of India – WP (C) 24/2016.This case pertains to the sport of Jallikattu which is held mostly in the State of Tamil Nadu. The word ‘Jallikattu’ literally translates to silver or gold coins tied on the bulls’ horns. The practice of Jallikattu was an age-old tradition where people in Tamil Nadu used to try and get the money placed around the bulls’ horns, which depicted as an act of bravery..Later, it became a sport conducted for entertainment and was called Yeruthu Kattu, in which a fast moving bull was corralled with ropes around its neck. It later assumed different forms and shapes like Jallikattu (in the present form), Bull Race etc., which is based on the concept of flight or fight..The practice is regulated by the Tamil Nadu Jallikkattu Regulation (TNJR) Act of 2009. An anthropocentric legislation, the Act offers little in the way of preventing cruelty to animals..In 2011, the Centre had issued a notification banning use of various animals including bulls as performing animals. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to examine the validity of the same. A Bench presided by Justice KS Radhakrishnan proceed to uphold the validity of the said notification by its 2014 judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja and Others [2014) 7 SCC 547] and held that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of Prevention of Cruelty Act. The court also held that the TNRJ Act, 2009, was repugnant to the PCA Act and it was, consequently, struck down as unconstitutional and void..The said judgment had received much attention with the People of Ethical Treatment of Animal bestowing the “Man of the Year” award on Justice Radhakrishnan..The matter, however, did not end there. The Central government on January 7, 2016 issued a notification in suppression of its 2011 notification. The new notification carved out an exception for Jallikkattu and bullock cart races which stated the following:.“Provided that bulls may be continue to be exhibited or trained as a performing animal, at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bullock cart races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat in the manner by the customs of any community or practiced traditionally under the customs or as a part of culture, in any part of the country…”.The above exception also came with a number of conditions to ensure that “no unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted or caused, in any manner, whatsoever, during the course of such events, or in preparation”..This notification has now been challenged and is under the consideration of the Supreme Court..A Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and NV Ramana stayed the notification on January 12 this year..Status: The matter was last heard by a Bench of Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ. on July 26, when the parties were granted time to complete their written submissions. The case has now been listed for final disposal on August 30. The court has made it clear in its order that no adjournment requests will be entertained on that day..Stray dog culling.Case(s): .Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India – WP (C) 599/2015Animal Welfare Board of India v. Ombudsman for Local Self-government Institutions & ors. – SLP (C) CC 16880/ 2015Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Trouble – SLP(C) 691/2009.This issue came to prominence when the Kerala government took a decision in 2015 to eliminate stray dogs after a spate of dog attacks on people. The decision of the Kerala government was based on a 2006- decision of the High Court of Kerala which had upheld the powers of the local self-government institutions to kill stray dogs..The Animal Welfare Board of India responded to the decision of the Kerala government by challenging the 2006-judgment in Supreme Court. A Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant agreed to hear the matter along with a similar appeal filed by the same appellant challenging a decision of the Bombay High Court. Meanwhile, another petitioner, Anupam Tripathi, also joined the fray. Tripathi is praying for a Mandamus to stop culling of dogs and is also seeking an investigation into the killing of stray dogs in Kerala by an independent committee..All these petitions are now being heard together..Status: When the matter was last heard, a Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman directed the Animal Welfare Board to file a module based on the reports received from various States regarding implementation of Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960. The case is now listed for September 14..Elephants.Case: Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. – WP (C) 743/2014.This case deals with a wide variety of issues pertaining to captive elephants. It includes parading elephants for temple festivals without proper registration or requisite permission, using elephants for recreation of tourists in resorts and treating elephants with cruelty etc..Captive elephants are widely used in States like Kerala, Goa, Rajasthan etc. The petition is of particular significance to Kerala as elephants are a major crowd puller during temple festivals etc..In one of the applications, a challenge has been made to a notification issued by Kerala government regarding issuance of ownership certificates. The court has stayed the issuance of ownership certificates to those in possession of elephants. That apart, persons who are in possession of elephants have been ordered not to transfer the elephants outside the Stat or part with the elephants by way of transfer in any manner. The court has also directed that if any ownership certificate has been issued in the meantime, the same shall be withdrawn subject to the final verdict of this Court..Importantly, the court, in its final hearing, will consider the following three issues: ‘.“(i) after the Act has come into force, whether any person can keep an elephant in his custody as the owner;.(ii) assuming there is no prohibition for keeping an elephant, what Rule should govern the upkeep of the animal; and.(iii) who are the authorities to regulate the health, upkeep and the manner in which the elephants are to be treated and used.”.Status: The matter was last heard by a Bench comprising Dipak Misra and C Nagappan JJ. It is now listed for final disposal on September 21..Cruelty in pet shops.Case: Angel Trust v. Union of India – WP (C) 296/2016.This petition has sought the apex court’s intervention to curb the rising cruelty against animals in pet shops. Filed by an NGO, Angel Trust, the petition claims that there is a vacuum of law with respect to protection of animals since the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has not been amended since 1960 and the fine of Rs. 50 which is prescribed by the Act does not act as a deterrent to crimes against animals..The petition also states that though Sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code also deal with killing and maiming of animals, the same is applicable only to animals with value of more than Rs. 10 and Rs. 50 respectively effectively denying the protection afforded by it to stray animals..The main concern of the petitioner is the burgeoning and completely unregulated pet shop industry..“This industry is rampant with horrific abuse and exploitation. The same has been highlighted by the Law Commission in its report No. 261 – “Need to Regulate Pet Shops and Dog and Aquarium Fish Breeding” (submitted on 28th August 2015 to the Union Minister of Law and Justice). The report observes that pet shops and breeders violate provisions of animal welfare laws with impunity, and recommends that it is necessary to regulate their practices..The report observes that pet shops and breeders violate provisions of animal welfare laws with impunity, and recommends that it is necessary to regulate their practices.”.Most interestingly, the petition has contended application of Articles 21 and 14 to animals and alleged violation of the same..“… Article 21 (which applies to animals as well, as per Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (Supra)) is violated due to the paltry and virtually non-existent penal provisions as regards infliction of cruelty..…Article 14 is being violated since a paltry punishment of 50 Rupees, even in the case of most heinous cruelty perpetrated on animals, is antithetical of the central tenet of “Anti-Arbitrariness” of the constitutional jurisprudence of India.”.The petitioner has made the following prayers:.“(a) Issue an order under Article 142 to make sections 428 and 429 of the IPC applicable to all animals irrespective of monetary value or ownership..(b) Issue guidelines as regards punishment for animal abuse, till the amendment to the PCA Act is not passed by the Parliament..(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to form a task force to look into the severe health risk posed by these pet shops and take preventative steps in stopping the rise and the spread of various animal borne diseases..(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to notify the 3 sets of rules as prepared by the AWBI to regulate the pet shop industry.”.Status: A Bench comprising Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh JJ. issued notice to the Union government on May 12..Animal Transportation to Bangladesh.Case: Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh v. Union of India – WP (C) 210/2015.This case pertains to transportation of animals to Bangladesh. It was initially being heard along with the case on transportation of cattle to Nepal [Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India & Ors. – WP(C) 881/2014]. That case was, however, disposed of after the Central government told the court that draft rules have been prepared to deal with the issue and will be finalised soon..In the instant case, the Court has been informed that the Centre is a convening a joint meeting of all the concerned States to evolve a comprehensive plan to deal with the issue. The court has directed that the suggestions arrived at in the meeting be submitted to it..Status: The matter was last heard by JS Khehar and Arun Mishra JJ. when the Centre sought time to convene the meeting of the concerned States and finalise the matter. The case was, therefore, adjourned and will now be heard after two months..Image taken from here.
Till recently, animal rights jurisprudence in India was largely limited to a few Directive principles in the Constitution and Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960..However, the 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja was a watershed moment as it delved into animal rights jurisprudence like never before..The judgment also resulted in a spurt in litigation in Supreme Court surrounding animal rights. The growing presence and work of various NGOs in the country have also given an impetus to rights of animals..The Supreme Court of India is seeing a lot of litigation these days on issues affecting animal rights, with a number of Article 32 writ petitions being filed. Below is a list of five important cases in Supreme Court involving fight for rights of animals..Jallikattu.Case: Compassion Unlimited Plus Action v. Union of India – WP (C) 24/2016.This case pertains to the sport of Jallikattu which is held mostly in the State of Tamil Nadu. The word ‘Jallikattu’ literally translates to silver or gold coins tied on the bulls’ horns. The practice of Jallikattu was an age-old tradition where people in Tamil Nadu used to try and get the money placed around the bulls’ horns, which depicted as an act of bravery..Later, it became a sport conducted for entertainment and was called Yeruthu Kattu, in which a fast moving bull was corralled with ropes around its neck. It later assumed different forms and shapes like Jallikattu (in the present form), Bull Race etc., which is based on the concept of flight or fight..The practice is regulated by the Tamil Nadu Jallikkattu Regulation (TNJR) Act of 2009. An anthropocentric legislation, the Act offers little in the way of preventing cruelty to animals..In 2011, the Centre had issued a notification banning use of various animals including bulls as performing animals. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to examine the validity of the same. A Bench presided by Justice KS Radhakrishnan proceed to uphold the validity of the said notification by its 2014 judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja and Others [2014) 7 SCC 547] and held that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of Prevention of Cruelty Act. The court also held that the TNRJ Act, 2009, was repugnant to the PCA Act and it was, consequently, struck down as unconstitutional and void..The said judgment had received much attention with the People of Ethical Treatment of Animal bestowing the “Man of the Year” award on Justice Radhakrishnan..The matter, however, did not end there. The Central government on January 7, 2016 issued a notification in suppression of its 2011 notification. The new notification carved out an exception for Jallikkattu and bullock cart races which stated the following:.“Provided that bulls may be continue to be exhibited or trained as a performing animal, at events such as Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu and bullock cart races in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Kerala and Gujarat in the manner by the customs of any community or practiced traditionally under the customs or as a part of culture, in any part of the country…”.The above exception also came with a number of conditions to ensure that “no unnecessary pain or suffering is inflicted or caused, in any manner, whatsoever, during the course of such events, or in preparation”..This notification has now been challenged and is under the consideration of the Supreme Court..A Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and NV Ramana stayed the notification on January 12 this year..Status: The matter was last heard by a Bench of Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ. on July 26, when the parties were granted time to complete their written submissions. The case has now been listed for final disposal on August 30. The court has made it clear in its order that no adjournment requests will be entertained on that day..Stray dog culling.Case(s): .Anupam Tripathi v. Union of India – WP (C) 599/2015Animal Welfare Board of India v. Ombudsman for Local Self-government Institutions & ors. – SLP (C) CC 16880/ 2015Animal Welfare Board of India v. People for Elimination of Stray Trouble – SLP(C) 691/2009.This issue came to prominence when the Kerala government took a decision in 2015 to eliminate stray dogs after a spate of dog attacks on people. The decision of the Kerala government was based on a 2006- decision of the High Court of Kerala which had upheld the powers of the local self-government institutions to kill stray dogs..The Animal Welfare Board of India responded to the decision of the Kerala government by challenging the 2006-judgment in Supreme Court. A Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant agreed to hear the matter along with a similar appeal filed by the same appellant challenging a decision of the Bombay High Court. Meanwhile, another petitioner, Anupam Tripathi, also joined the fray. Tripathi is praying for a Mandamus to stop culling of dogs and is also seeking an investigation into the killing of stray dogs in Kerala by an independent committee..All these petitions are now being heard together..Status: When the matter was last heard, a Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman directed the Animal Welfare Board to file a module based on the reports received from various States regarding implementation of Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960. The case is now listed for September 14..Elephants.Case: Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. – WP (C) 743/2014.This case deals with a wide variety of issues pertaining to captive elephants. It includes parading elephants for temple festivals without proper registration or requisite permission, using elephants for recreation of tourists in resorts and treating elephants with cruelty etc..Captive elephants are widely used in States like Kerala, Goa, Rajasthan etc. The petition is of particular significance to Kerala as elephants are a major crowd puller during temple festivals etc..In one of the applications, a challenge has been made to a notification issued by Kerala government regarding issuance of ownership certificates. The court has stayed the issuance of ownership certificates to those in possession of elephants. That apart, persons who are in possession of elephants have been ordered not to transfer the elephants outside the Stat or part with the elephants by way of transfer in any manner. The court has also directed that if any ownership certificate has been issued in the meantime, the same shall be withdrawn subject to the final verdict of this Court..Importantly, the court, in its final hearing, will consider the following three issues: ‘.“(i) after the Act has come into force, whether any person can keep an elephant in his custody as the owner;.(ii) assuming there is no prohibition for keeping an elephant, what Rule should govern the upkeep of the animal; and.(iii) who are the authorities to regulate the health, upkeep and the manner in which the elephants are to be treated and used.”.Status: The matter was last heard by a Bench comprising Dipak Misra and C Nagappan JJ. It is now listed for final disposal on September 21..Cruelty in pet shops.Case: Angel Trust v. Union of India – WP (C) 296/2016.This petition has sought the apex court’s intervention to curb the rising cruelty against animals in pet shops. Filed by an NGO, Angel Trust, the petition claims that there is a vacuum of law with respect to protection of animals since the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has not been amended since 1960 and the fine of Rs. 50 which is prescribed by the Act does not act as a deterrent to crimes against animals..The petition also states that though Sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code also deal with killing and maiming of animals, the same is applicable only to animals with value of more than Rs. 10 and Rs. 50 respectively effectively denying the protection afforded by it to stray animals..The main concern of the petitioner is the burgeoning and completely unregulated pet shop industry..“This industry is rampant with horrific abuse and exploitation. The same has been highlighted by the Law Commission in its report No. 261 – “Need to Regulate Pet Shops and Dog and Aquarium Fish Breeding” (submitted on 28th August 2015 to the Union Minister of Law and Justice). The report observes that pet shops and breeders violate provisions of animal welfare laws with impunity, and recommends that it is necessary to regulate their practices..The report observes that pet shops and breeders violate provisions of animal welfare laws with impunity, and recommends that it is necessary to regulate their practices.”.Most interestingly, the petition has contended application of Articles 21 and 14 to animals and alleged violation of the same..“… Article 21 (which applies to animals as well, as per Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraj (Supra)) is violated due to the paltry and virtually non-existent penal provisions as regards infliction of cruelty..…Article 14 is being violated since a paltry punishment of 50 Rupees, even in the case of most heinous cruelty perpetrated on animals, is antithetical of the central tenet of “Anti-Arbitrariness” of the constitutional jurisprudence of India.”.The petitioner has made the following prayers:.“(a) Issue an order under Article 142 to make sections 428 and 429 of the IPC applicable to all animals irrespective of monetary value or ownership..(b) Issue guidelines as regards punishment for animal abuse, till the amendment to the PCA Act is not passed by the Parliament..(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to form a task force to look into the severe health risk posed by these pet shops and take preventative steps in stopping the rise and the spread of various animal borne diseases..(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to notify the 3 sets of rules as prepared by the AWBI to regulate the pet shop industry.”.Status: A Bench comprising Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh JJ. issued notice to the Union government on May 12..Animal Transportation to Bangladesh.Case: Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh v. Union of India – WP (C) 210/2015.This case pertains to transportation of animals to Bangladesh. It was initially being heard along with the case on transportation of cattle to Nepal [Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India & Ors. – WP(C) 881/2014]. That case was, however, disposed of after the Central government told the court that draft rules have been prepared to deal with the issue and will be finalised soon..In the instant case, the Court has been informed that the Centre is a convening a joint meeting of all the concerned States to evolve a comprehensive plan to deal with the issue. The court has directed that the suggestions arrived at in the meeting be submitted to it..Status: The matter was last heard by JS Khehar and Arun Mishra JJ. when the Centre sought time to convene the meeting of the concerned States and finalise the matter. The case was, therefore, adjourned and will now be heard after two months..Image taken from here.
