Court Can Exercise Inherent Jurisdiction For Welfare Of Animals: AP High Court Directs Listing Of Habeas Corpus Plea Challenging 'Illegal Detention' Of Bovine Animals

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed its Registry to list a plea which was filed challenging the illegal detention of 195 Bovine Animals and praying for their production.

The matter was listed before the Division Bench of Justice U Durga Prasad and Justice Sumathi Jagadam, to hear the office objections raised regarding the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition filed to produce the 195 alleged unlawfully detained animals.

The Bench orally observed that as long as the situation concerning the welfare of animals is involved, the technicalities of whether a writ in the form of Habeas Corpus is maintainable or not will not detain it from exercising inherent jurisdiction.

The writ petition has been filed by concerned citizens and Animal Activists praying that the cows that had been illegally detained by the Police Officials in an unknown place be produced.

They stated that on the day before Bakr-Eid, they got the news that in Vijayawada, cattle, which were unfit for slaughter was being, were being taken to slaughterhouses. The petitioners reached the location and started to examine the animals.

Allegedly, the animals were under the age of 10, were underweight and some were even suffering from lumpy skin disease. As per the rules, animals under the age of 10 or animals with diseases, were not fit for sacrifice.

Promptly, the petitioner raised a complaint with the concerned police department and the situation was taken cognizance of. The cattle were secured and protected from further transportation.

The petitioners were called to the Police Station and upon reaching they saw that a mob of about 300 people had gathered outside the PS, demanding the release of the seized animals, claiming to be their owners.

It was stated that the claims of the mob were untenable to the petitioners, but the investigating authorities without verifying the facts and following due procedure of law, remanded the petitioners and shifted the animals to an undisclosed location.

“The respondent officials are duty bound to follow the procedure, i.e. registration of crime, producing the secured cattle before the concerned magistrate. Then the bona fide purchaser ought to file a petition for release of the same by showing his bona fide. However, the respondent officials without following such procedure, simply relocated them to another place but orally denying that, they did not hand over them to the claimants and they'll do so soon. The action of the respondent officials in this regard is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and rules made thereunder and the AP Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animals Preservation Act, 1977 and the rules made thereunder," the plea stated.

Case title: Surabattula Gopala Rao vs State of AP

Counsel for petitioners: J. V. Phanlduth

Counsel for respondents: AGP Suman