Skip to main content

Animal Cruelty in India and what does the law say about this?

 Animal Cruelty in India and what does the law say about this?

The cruelty that people inflict on animals is well-known.

Bruno, a dog, was recently treated inhumanely in a tragic occurrence. A worldwide virtual outcry erupted in response. This is not, however, the first incidence; rather, it is one of many that go unreported. Despite anti-cruelty legislation and rules, India continues to see unnatural animal deaths all over the country. Nonetheless, India scored second in the Global Animal Protection Index in 2020, which was a surprise. 

Given the number of animal cruelty cases currently pending, it begs the question: why is it necessary to have distinct legislation for animals?

One of our primary responsibilities, according to Article 51A (g), is to maintain the natural environment and to exhibit compassion for all living species.

Furthermore, the state is obligated to conserve and improve our environment under Article 48A of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

As a result, these responsibilities are linked to animal rights. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 and the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 both have these provisions.  The following are the four main rights protected by these laws:

  1. Cruelty in General: Animals must not be beaten or tortured, according to Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 (PCA Act, 1960).  This clause makes it illegal for pet owners to treat their animals cruelly in any way. Organising animal fights as a sport or entertainment is a crime punishable by a fine ranging from Rs.50 to Rs.100 or three months in prison, or both. The PCA Act addresses animal cruelty, and Sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 make it illegal to kill or maim any animal for commercial purposes.

  2. Entertainment Restriction: Using animals for entertainment or commercial purposes is also considered cruelty and is prohibited in the interest of the animals. The act of showing or training any animals is punishable under Section 26 of the PCA Act 1960, with fines of up to RS.500. However, Section 27 provides an exception to this rule. Animals that are trained or shown for legitimate purposes such as military training or educational purposes shall be exempt from Section 26.

  3. Aquatic Animal Protection: Many people must have wondered why India lacks a dolphinarium. Dolphins are listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 because they are an aquatic mammal native to India. Part II and Part II A of Schedule I of this bill contain a list of species that must be protected. With effect from May 17, 2013, India has prohibited the use of dolphins in entertainment shows or for any commercial purposes.

  4. Wild Animal Conservation: Hunting is defined by the Wildlife Protection Act as more than only killing or poisoning wild animals. Nonetheless, it encompasses activities that disrupt the lives of wild animals, such as damaging an animal's or reptile's egg or disrupting their nest. As a result, under Section 9 of the Wildlife Protection Act, hunting is punishable by a fine of Rs.25,000 or up to three years in prison, or both. This Act, once again, enables hunting for specific purposes such as scientific or educational ones.


Judicial References and Animal Rights

1)Nair, N. R. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.:  Here, the Supreme court held that bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions should not be exhibited or trained as performing animals though this violates the right to carry out any trade or business which is guaranteed under Article 19(g).

2)Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors.: In the case in 2014, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment that imposed a ban on Jallikattu, a sport in Tamil Nadu. The Court extended the right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, to all beings, including animals.

Are Animal Laws Effective Enough?

Sexual abuse and harming the private areas of female animals are examples of animal cruelty. The majority of the victims of these acts are stray animals.   As a result, effective enforcement of animal protection laws is impossible in the face of such heinous acts. In India, at least 50 animals die every day as a result of animal cruelty. However, because most cases of animal cruelty go undetected, these figures are only the tip of the iceberg. Many people are ignorant that their activities against animals are illegal, thus they are fearless. Furthermore, this harshness is frequently trivialised. Furthermore, all animal rights are ignored since the penalty for violating them are so small. A first-time offender for animal cruelty, for example, faces a fine ranging from Rs.10 to Rs.50. In many circumstances, animal protection laws fall short of sufficiently covering the scope of crime, leaving animals vulnerable to humans' callous behaviour. As a result, legislative flaws are the primary reason of rising animal cruelty in India.

Thus, it is time to make the laws even more stringent and harsh on the perpetrator. After all, the animals must be treated at par with humans and be given some fundamental rights to live peacefully.




By: Shagun Mahendroo
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more