“Animals Have Feelings Like Human Beings”: Bombay High Court Denies Interim Custody Of Milching Buffaloes To Owners For Violating Transportation Rules
The Bombay High Court recently denied interim custody of over 68 cattle to its owners in a case under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 (PCA) for failing to follow mandatory norms while transporting the animals.Even as the owners claimed that they were being denied income from their milching buffaloes, the court ruled that till the end of the trial the buffaloes would remain with...
The Bombay High Court recently denied interim custody of over 68 cattle to its owners in a case under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act 1960 (PCA) for failing to follow mandatory norms while transporting the animals.
Even as the owners claimed that they were being denied income from their milching buffaloes, the court ruled that till the end of the trial the buffaloes would remain with the Gaushala. The animals were placed at the Gaushala after they were seized early last year.
Justice GA Sanap dismissed an appeal filed by the cattle owners in two separate pleas observing the gaushalas were better equipped to care for the animals. While the order was passed on April 19, the order copy was uploaded earlier this month.
“…while deciding such matter, the prime consideration must be the welfare, protection and maintenance of the animals. The Court has to see who is comparatively better suited and equipped to provide the necessary comfort and protection to the animals.”
The bench added that,
“animals have emotions, feelings and senses similar to a human being. The only difference is that the animals cannot speak and therefore, though their rights are recognized under the law, they cannot assert the same. The rights of the animals, welfare of the animals and protection of the animals has to be taken care of by the concerned in accordance with law.”
On March 1 and 10, 2022 the Nagpur police seized total 68 cattle (buffaloes) from four vehicles on a tip that the animals were illegally transported. A case was registered under Section 11(1)(d) of the PCA Act 1960 for treating the animal with cruelty during transport and Sections 66 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The prosecution alleged that the cattle were being transported in an inhuman condition without following Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 along with its amendment in 2001. As per the rules the animal were being transported without a vicenarian’s fitness certificate; instead of six animals per vehicle the number was 2-3 times, no first aid kit, fodder or water was provided to the animals.
The petitioners, original owners of the cattle, first approached the Magistrate’s court that refused to hand over the buffaloes' custody. Then they filed a revision application before the Sessions Court and finally approached the High Court after the Sessions court refused relief.
The petitioners represented by Advocate Laique Hussain argued that the petitioners possessed valid trade licence for sale and purchase of the animals from APMC market. Being the owners, the petitioners couldn’t be denied the cattle’s custody. He further argued that some of the cattle were milching and the petitioners were denied income. He contended the animals weren’t treated with cruelty and the petitioners couldn’t be made to wait till the end of the trial.
Advocate D. R. Galande for Maa Foundation Gaushala said they were better equipped to keep the buffaloes. They also agreed to waive off the maintenance charges for the 68 cattle.
Justice Sanap observed that despite using a goods vehicle more than six cattle (mandatory ) were being transported during the interception.
The court relied on a SC judgement were over double (47) the number of cattle presently found were being transported in a single truck and the apex court had refused interim custody of the cattle.
“It is seen on perusal of the facts brought on record that majority of the animals are milching buffaloes. Compared to the cow, milching buffalo is large in size. The milching buffaloes were cramped in the vehicle, which were not fitted with padding etc. There was no provision of water and fodder,” the court observed.
In these cases, prima facie, violation of the law and rules has been made out, Court said. The petitioners have not come before the Court with a specific contention with regard to the availability of provision for maintenance, shelter etc, the court held and dismissed the petition.
Case Title - Ansar Ahmad vs State of Maha
Case Number – Cri WP 708/ 2022