Laws For Prevention Of Animal Cruelty

A Critical Analysis Of Laws For Prevention Of Animal Cruelty In India

Written By: Meghna Prusty

Introduction

Animal welfare refers to the animals’ overall well-being and how well they cope with their conditions and surroundings. It is concerned with man’s interaction with nature. Since the start of time, humans have been known to domesticate animals. Animals are venerated as gods and goddesses in India, in addition to being employed for husbandry and agriculture. Animal welfare is addressed in the Indian constitution as well as various other legislation. In Centre for Environmental Law, WWF v. Union of India (1), the Supreme Court of India ruled. For a sustainable future for humans and other animals, “Ecocentrism” rather than “Anthropocentrism” should be the norm. Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans are the most significant species on the planet, with other species serving as support. This concept is in direct opposition to “Ecocentrism,” which views humans and nonhumans as equal members of nature with “intrinsic value.” As a result, in order to maintain a balance in nature, humans should see other species as having the same value as themselves. Despite this, animal cruelty and exploitation persist unabated across the country. The range of animal abuse depicts a picture of appalling cruelty, from illegal ivory trade from wildlife reserves to torturing animals for sadistic enjoyment. This behavior is based on the notion that because humans have progressed cognitively far more than other creatures, they have risen to the top of the food chain. Several investigations, however, have demonstrated that animals are capable of cognitive reasoning and intelligence. Furthermore, regardless of empirical data on animal feelings and intelligence, the human race’s grandiose fantasies must be ended. Many people have criticized the law provisions in place to protect animals, particularly The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, for being excessively lenient on animal abusers. Because the most common punishment for animal cruelty is a minor fine, animal abusers are unconcerned about the consequences of their actions.

Constitution

According to Article 48 A of the Constitution, the government is responsible for “protecting and improving the environment” as well as “safeguarding the country’s forests and animals.”

According to Article 51A, inhabitants of this country have a fundamental responsibility to be humane to animals and to “protect and improve the environment, especially forests, lakes, and rivers.”

The state legislature has the right to create legislation to “preserve, maintain, and improve stock and prevent animal diseases, and enforce veterinary training and practice,” according to List II of the Indian Constitution’s Seventh Schedule.

Both the parliament and state legislatures can establish legislation to combat animal cruelty, “protection of wild animals and birds,” according to List III of the Indian Constitution’s Seventh Schedule.

Indian Penal Code

According to Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code, “mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering useless any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees or upwards shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Under Section 429 of the IPC, committing mischief by killing or maiming animals such as camels, horses, bulls, oxen, or any other animal worth fifty rupees or more is punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine, or both.

These offenses are bailable, cognizable offenses, and non-compoundable offenses.

* The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960*

Section 11, which defines animal cruelty and outlines penalties for it, is the most extensive section of the Act. Cruelty is defined in this section as beating, kicking, or overloading an animal, wilfully administering injurious drugs or harmful substances, keeping the animal in a cage that is not proportional to the animal’s dimensions, keeping an animal chained for an unreasonable period, cruelly mutilating or killing an animal, and promoting or participating in an animal shooting competition.

Section 12 of the Act punishes “phooka” or “doom dev” who perform or authorize any technique (including injections) on any cow or milch animal in order to boost lactating, resulting in the animal’s health deteriorating.

Section 22 of the Act prohibits the training or exhibition of any “performing animal.”

The Animal Welfare Board of India was established under Section 4 of the aforementioned Act as a “statutory advisory body on Animal Welfare Laws.”

The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972

The purpose of this law is to protect and maintain India’s wildlife. Wildlife protection legislation includes the Wild Life (Transactions and Taxidermy) Rules, 1973; The Wild Life (Stock Declaration) Central Rules, 1973; The Wildlife (Protection) Licensing (Additional Matters for Consideration) Rules, 1983; and The Wild Life (Protection) Rules, 1995 (2) . This Act mandates the establishment of a wildlife advisory board in each state and union territory, which is in charge of declaring sanctuaries, national parks, and closed areas, administering them, formulating policies for wildlife protection and conservation, and balancing the needs of tribals and forest dwellers with wildlife preservation. Hunting of animals listed in schedules I, II, III, and IV is prohibited under section 9 of the Act. This section, however, is subject to Sections 11 and 12, which enable hunting in particular circumstances. This Act carries penalties of up to seven years in prison and a fine of up to twenty-five thousand rupees.

The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules (2001), Slaughter House Rules (2001), and 148-C and 135-B of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, are examples of other animal protection legislation.

Judicial Pronouncements

Gauri Maulekhi vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. (3)

Even for the purpose of consumption, the court ruled that an animal cannot be subjected to undue pain and suffering. It’s against the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, section 11(3) (e).

Abdul Hakim Qureshi vs. State of Bihar (4)

The Supreme Court ruled that a blanket prohibition on cows did not violate Muslims’ religious freedom. Article 48 of the constitution only applies to cows, calves, and other animals with the ability to produce milk or work as drought animals, not all cows or cattle.

Conclusion

A law that was passed decades ago has not been updated to reflect changes in society’s socioeconomic situation. Several animal rights organizations and activists have criticized the penalties of The Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960 over the years, but the legislature has taken no action to put the punishment of the offense in line with the goal of the Act. Furthermore, failing to emphasize the essential responsibilities of an Indian citizen, which include animal compassion, as stated in Article 51 A, would be a mistake. The law on animal cruelty has progressed significantly over time. Animals’ inherent value, not just their utility to people, has been recognized by courts. Animal welfare boards, courts, and non-governmental organizations have all expressed strong opposition to forcing animals to fight for sport or to be sacrificed for religious reasons.

Citation