'Not Merely Another Adversarial Litigation': Kerala High Court Asks State To Adopt Strict Measures For Animal Welfare

Justices Jayasankaran Nambiar and P Gopinath emphasized that this has to be a concerted action by all the concerned stakeholders and branches of the government. Accordingly, they established as such:

"Don't consider this as a usual adversarial litigation that is in-conducive to public interest. Rather, this is more of a participative exercise, not just involving the legal department but the State as well."

Accordingly, the Director General of Prosecution was directed to file a statement regarding the action taken on the complaint filed by the owner of the dog which was brutally killed by 3 youngsters within 10 days. Advocate Ashok Cherian informed the Court that three of them have been apprehended and charged under Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and Section 429 of IPC.

Apart from this specific matter, the Division Bench suggested reforms to the existing scheme in the State to protect animal rights and to promote their welfare. The Bench declared that it will identify the shortfalls in the legislative and executive actions in this regard, and alert the State as to what steps should be taken for the same.

Appreciating the fact that there was an abundance of issues in this area, the Court highlighted some of the major issues that required urgent redressal. They are as follows:

Measures Recommended by the Bench:

• Animal shelters to be set up and maintained by the State and the local self governments around the State as mandated by the concerned Statutes. The State administration was directed to bring inputs to make this venture further effective.

• A feasible plan to be drawn up to launch an awareness campaign for Centre and State informing the citizenry of their duties and obligations regarding rights of animals.

· Ensure the reconstitution of State Animal Welfare Board in Kerala. It was brought to the attention of the Court that this Board has a term of 3 years, and that a new Board has not been created yet after the term completion of the last one in March 2021. It was also submitted that despite being an empowered body, it did not function appropriately in the State.

• Investigate into the condition of veterinary hospitals and existing medical infrastructure in the State, and to implement steps to upgrade their efficiency and hygiene.

· State to earmark a provision in the Budget to cater to the needs of animals and thereby allocate appropriate funds since this was going to be a regular matter.

· Introduce a scheme or machinery to organize periodical adoption drives or camps for stray animals on the streets. The Court directed so after observing that the response to such adoption camps was positively overwhelming. However, it was also mentioned that safeguards should be provided to ensure that the adoptions are not made be for malafide motive.

· The Division Bench insisted that residential associations should not forbid animals in their buildings, citing that there may be people interested in keeping pets. The Court made this observation on the ground that in today's circumstances, this is an illegality considering right to keep an animal is directly related to the right of the animal to be kept, thereby a recognized Fundamental Right under Article 21. In that regard, it was advised that individuals should be allowed to keep a pet so long as he takes safeguards to prevent it from disturbing the lifestyle of others.

• Initiate steps to make the State animal-friendly. The Court observed the increasing number of reported incidents of animal cruelty where the associated trauma was multiplied by visuals of such gruesome actions circulated via social media. It is thereby important to infuse a culture within the State that satisfies the constitutional obligation to protect animals, and to improve the general attitude of citizenry towards animals.

Concerned authorities were ordered to inform the Court of the progress in the aforementioned guidelines within three weeks. The Division Bench also welcomed inputs from Animal Welfare Associations and interested individuals, especially from the legal fraternity.

The Bench also mentioned that an amicus curie shall be appointed in due course of time to collect relevant data in the matter.

Meanwhile, Advocate Mathews J Nadumpara proposed that reforms be initiated to find ways to alleviate the pain during slaughtering of animals, by utilizing another method for the same. The Court responded to this proposal by assuring that eventually more humane ways to slaughter animals will be looked into.

In the light of this argument, the Animal Welfare Board was directed to come up with a methodology to find an effective way to store and pack meat for those who consume it, and that measures should be taken to ensure that this is done in a hygienic manner.

The Animal Welfare Board during the proceedings submitted that considering the inadequacy of the present penalty under the Act, a proposal is underway to increase the penalty to Rs. 75, 00,000 with 5 years of imprisonment.

Background:

The Kerala High Court had registered a suo motu PIL yesterday to monitor state action in reported instances of cruelty to animals and in the matter o prevention of cruelty to animals. Following this, notices were issued to the Centre, State and Animal Welfare Board of India respectively.

This comes after Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar addressed a letter to the CJI urging to take cognizance of a news report of three minors perpetrating the inhuman killing of a dog on a beach in Thiruvananthapuram. Although a police case had been registered in the matter, the letter emphasized the prosecution in related matters was seldom purposive and expeditious.

The primary concern expressed in the letter was that the Indian legislations for protection of animals were founded on the premise of superiority of human species over all others

In the said letter, it was stated that time has now come to push the State and its instrumentalities into taking affirmative action to safeguard the rights of Animals. It had elaborated on several instances where the judiciary had upheld such rights for the welfare of animals.