[BREAKING] "In Re Bruno:" Kerala High Court renames suo motu case on animal cruelty in memory of dog killed by three persons

A suo motu case initiated by the Kerala High Court on animal cruelty will now bear the name of a Labrador dog, Bruno, allegedly killed by three minors in the State..The High Court had on Thursday initiated suo motu proceedings regarding animal cruelty based on the news reports about the alleged cruel and inhuman killing of Bruno by three minors on the Adimalathura beach in Thiruvananthapuram.In its order passed today in the case, the Court found it fit to rename the case as “In Re: Bruno (Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Proceedings initiated by the High Court in the matter of executive and legislative inaction of the State Government in the matter of Protection of Animal Rights)”.."To begin with, we direct the Registry to rename this writ petition as “In Re: Bruno (Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Proceedings initiated by the High Court in the matter of executive and legislative inaction of the State Government in the matter of Protection of Animal Rights)”. We feel that this would be a fitting tribute to the hapless dog that succumbed to acts of human cruelty, and disturbed by which incident we had initiated these proceedings," the order passed today said..The order was passed by a Bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Gopinath P. .With regard to the incident where Bruno was killed, the High Court requested the Director General of Prosecution TA Shaji, to personally attend to the matter and ensure that the perpetrators of the gruesome crime are brought to justice. .The Court also directed that a report be filed before it regarding the actions taken till date on the complaint received from the owner of Bruno. .The Court focused on the following pressing issues today:1. Awareness CampaignsAt the outset, the Court stressed the need for a feasible plan for effectively implementing awareness campaigns on a war footing to inform the citizenry of their duties corresponding to the rights and freedoms of animals as recognised in the Constitution as also clarified by the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja & Ors..The apex court had held in the landmark Nagaraja judgment that the governments and the Animal Welfare Board must protect the ‘five freedoms’ of animals which includes - freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; freedom from fear and distress and freedom to express normal behaviour..2. Allowing pets in residential apartmentsIn this regard, the Court recorded that the Animal Welfare Board of India has already issued instructions recognising the rights of individuals to keep pets in residential apartments, and discouraging the insertion of clauses in the bye-laws of residential apartment associations that prohibit keeping of pets by the residents of such apartment complexes..3. Role of the StateThe Bench stressed, with a caveat that this is not an adversarial situation, that the role that the judiciary will play will be to look into the legalities, identify the shortfalls in executive and legislative action, and advise on the constitutionality or and legality of those actions..Therefore, it urged the State to take stock of the measures adopted by them to effectuate the rights and freedoms recognised as inherent in all animals under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and made the following suggestions:Explore the possibility of entrusting district administrations with the power to enquire into complaints of infringement of animal rights.Explore the possibility of promoting and holding animal adoption camps throughout the State, at periodic intervals of not less than thrice a year where persons can be encouraged to adopt animals that have been abandoned by their owners.Since it is necessary to have more veterinary hospitals and allied infrastructure that are well equipped, efficient and have a good level of hygiene, the State can gather data with regard to existing infrastructure and on ways to upgrade it.Issue directions to the local self government Institutions ie. the corporations, municipalities and panchayats in the State, to comply with their obligations with regard to animal shelters, dog pounds, cattle sheds etc., Ensure sufficient budgetary allowance so that there is no delay occasioned in such compliance on account of insufficiency of funds..4. Kerala State Animal Welfare BoardAdvocate MR Hariraj, representing a member of the Kerala State Animal Welfare Board, informed the Court that although the Animal Welfare Board for the State was constituted by the Kerala government pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, the Board so constituted had a tenure of only three years that was not extended thereafter. The Court noted that though the Board was tasked with specific functions such as licensing and regulating pet shops, aquariums and overseeing methods of animal breeding, it was not able to effectively function any its duties. Therefore, the Court requested Additional Advocate General Asok M Cherian to inform it of the steps taken by the State government to reconstitute and render functional, the State Animal Welfare Board, by the next date of hearing..The Bench highlighted the frighteningly frequent instances of cruelty to animals that have been reported in the media in the recent past and said that the State must not only strengthen deterrent measures, but must also resort to affirmative action to alleviate the misery of such hapless animals..The Court emphasised that a concerted effort from all branches of the government as well as the Animal Welfare Board and other organisations involved in protection of animal rights is the need of the hour. .It further emphasised that the primary motive of this suo motu PIL is to ensure the well-being of animals in the long run. .We need to actually infuse a culture within our state, which will satisfy the constitutional obligation of showing compassion to animals.Kerala High Court.The Court appointed Senior Advocate S Ramesh Babu and Advocate TC Suresh Menon, as Amici Curiae in this matter. The case will be heard next on July 13. .[Read Order]