"Rules Contradicts Section":Supreme Court On Prevention Of Cruelty To Animal Rules 2017, Allows Impleadment Of Intervenors

"Selling does not mean animal has been subjected to cruelty. Selling helps livelihood. We are talking about a situation where animals are taken away," observed a Supreme Court Bench led by CJI SA Bobde on Monday while hearing a petition challenging the validity of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, which allow authorities to seize vehicles used in cattle transportation and send the animals to gaushalas or cow shelters.

"'We told you last time that Rules are in dissonance with the Sections. The animals are the source of livelihood for people. The section is clear that only after conviction that animals can be taken away. The Rules permit to take away animals even before conviction".

The CJI was making objection to a provision in the impugned Rules that permit authorities to take away animals, said to be subjected to cruelty, even before conviction in the matter.

During a hearing held on January 4, the Chief Justice had warned that the Court will stay the Rules if the Centre does not withdraw them.

He had observed that the Rules are contrary to the parent statute. "Animals, not cats and dogs, are a source of livelihood. You cannot take this away, and it is also against Section 29 of the Act. Your Rules are contradictory. You either change it or stay it", CJI Bobde had told ASG Jayant Sood.

During the hearing today, the CJI asked the SG what the Government is planning to do about the rules.

"We told you last time that Rules are in dissonance with the Sections. The animals are the source of livelihood for people. The section is clear that only after conviction that animals can be taken away. The Rules permit to take away animals even before conviction," the CJI said.

At this juncture, the Solicitor General on behalf of the Central Government submitted that parties aggrieved by seizure may approach the court for custody.

Last week, a bench headed by the CJI had warned that the Court will stay the rules if the Centre does not withdraw them.

The plea, filed by Buffalo Traders Welfare Association, states that the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, were notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, on May 23, 2017, and are unconstitutional in nature.

It has further been stated that, while running contradictory to the Act itself, the Rules result in "frequent looting of the animals in violation of the Rule of Law. Certain groups get emboldened to take the law into their own hands. Moreover, these incidents are acting as triggers for communal polarization of society, and if not halted effectively and immediately, those will have disastrous consequences on the social fabric of the country".

In 2017, the Centre had told the Court that it was considering the withdrawal of these rules.

"It is also the contention of the Union of India, that a large number of representations depicting the allegedly unworkable and unacceptable provisions of the Rules have been received, and anumber of writ petitions have been filed in different High Courts,besides those which have been filed before this Court. It is pointed out, that the issues of challenge raised in the representations and writ petitions are the subject matter of afresh consideration by the Government of India. It is pointed out,that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, is presently seized of the matter, and after an appropriate determination, changes ifany, as may be considered appropriate will be introduced afterwhich the amended Rules, shall be re-notified. We record the above statement made to this Court on behalf of the Government of India", a bench headed by the then CJI had recorded in the order