Petitioner runs a slaughterhouse serving personal interest: Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh moves Supreme Court to defend 2017 Cattle Rules

Claiming that the President of the Buffalo Traders Welfare Association runs a slaughterhouse to further his personal interest, Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh has moved the Supreme Court seeking to be impleaded as a party in the case challenging the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017..The 2017 Rules provide for confiscation of cattle and vehicles used for cattle transportation even before the person accused of offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is convicted..In the plea filed by the Buffalo Traders Welfare Association pending before the apex court, the petitioners had contended that they were forcibly being deprived of their cattle, which are then sent to gaushalas.The traders had told the Court that the seizure and forfeiture of their livestock, a means of livelihood for many families, was happening on the strength of the 2017 Rules..Cattle Rules: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre; Four courts now seized of the matter.However, Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh states that the PIL was filed under the guise of serving the weaker sections of society, and is a clear attempt to further personal gains of access to animals.."President of the Petitioner organisation i.e., Aqil Qureshi runs a slaughter house in Delhi. He is also having flourishing business of hides and skins originating from slaughterhouses and supply thereof to leather industries. Thus, undoubtedly the instant petition is certainly not a Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioner has vested interest and therefore has not come with the clean hands," reads the impleadment application..The applicant states that the petitioner has grossly failed to understand the difference between seizure and custody of animals during the pendency of litigation and forfeiture of the animal after the conviction of the accused.The plea avers that though the terms “seizure” and “forfeiture” are commonly used as synonyms, they have different statutory meanings and different implications, which the petitioner has completely ignored."The term seizure is temporary in nature wherein the possession of the property is taken for a temporary period and the ownership on the said property may continue to be intact even if the property seized is in the custody of any third party/ authority," reads the application filed through Advocate Om Prakash Parihar.The plea states that the purpose of seizing animals and handing them over to animal welfare organisations is to "ensure that animals do not continue to be subjected to cruelty in the hands of accused persons.".The application further states that the petition challenging custody rules can have "adverse effect on regulating/checking the illegal trade of slaughter of animals and in most of the cases the Rules of Transport by Central Government, and which are also affirmed and approved by the Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Narain Modi are openly violated by these traders transporting the animals.".The 2017 Rules allow a magistrate to order the forfeiture of cattle of an owner facing trial under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The animals are then sent to infirmaries, gaushalas, pinjarapole, etc. The authorities can further give such animals for “adoption”. In short, a farmer or a trader can lose his cattle even before he is found guilty of cruelty under the 1960 Act..The petitioners have argued that the 2017 Rules have travelled beyond the boundaries of the 1960 Act.Under Section 29 of the Act, private cattle can be forfeited only after the owner is convicted and had faced a previous conviction. The other situations include the probability of further cruelty from the owner if the cattle is left with him.The Act says that an animal should be admitted to a shelter, etc., only if it is injured and requires treatment. The animal has to be returned to the owner after treatment..In January this year, the Central government defended the law before the apex court, dismissing the argument that taking the animals from their owners even before they are found guilty of cruelty would affect their livelihood."The argument that owners are deprived of their right to livelihood is not sustainable. They have no right to do their business illegally. They have to transport the animals as per the requirements of the Transport of Animals Rules of 1978,” the Centre's affidavit reads..During the previous hearing on January 4 this year, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde asked the government to delete the Rules, saying the law stripped people of their means to live.The government, however, maintained that the Rules were in consonance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.“The Rules prevent owners and transporters from causing animals unnecessary pain and suffering... Animals are sentient beings. They are capable of experiencing pain, sorrow, suffering and discomfort... Article 51A (g) of the Constitution enjoins upon every citizen to have compassion for living animals,” the Centre submitted.."Animals a source of livelihood, cannot be confiscated before accused is convicted:" Supreme Court asks Centre to amend Cattle Slaughter Rules