'Animals Don't Have Rights But State Instrumentalities Must Ensure Safe Environment': Madras HC Orders Compensation For Cow's Death By Electrocution

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that though animals did not have any rights as such, the State had a duty to ensure a safe environment for them. The judge added that courts have a duty to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to take care of the rights of animals since they were unable to take care of themselves.

“Even though animals do not have rights, State and its instrumentalities and local bodies have duty towards them and this duty can be enforced by courts. I hold that the State, its instrumentalities and local bodies including corporations, municipalities and panchayats are obliged to ensure a safe environment,” the court said.

The court noted that of late, the natural life span of cows was also cut short due to the consumption of plastic. The court noted that death due to consumption of plastic was different as in such cases, death came gradually and insidiously accompanied by severe pain. The court also noted that the law relating to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was silent on this aspect and time had come to take note of the disturbing reality and remedy the solution. The court said that the municipalities and corporations had a duty to keep the streets litter-free and action should be taken for damages against erring entities.

“If death takes place due to electrocution, the cause is visible. Death due to consumption of plastic is not apparent. In the case of the former, death is instantaneous. In the case of the latter, the death comes gradually and insidiously accompanied by severe pain. The law that speaks of prevention of cruelty to animals is silent on this. Time has come to take note of this disturbing reality and remedy the situation. Courts have a duty to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to take care of rights of animals since they are unable to take care of themselves,” the court observed.

In the present case, the court noted that the puddle was near a 100KVA power transformer which was not fenced. The cow had stepped into the puddle and died due to electrocution since there was a leakage of electricity. The same was also confirmed in the post-mortem report. Thus, petitioner approached the court seeking compensation for the loss of his cow.

The standing counsel for the TANGEDCO questioned the maintainability of the petition and argued that the petitioner should have approached the jurisdictional civil court.

The court noted that TANGEDCO had failed in its duty to ensure a safe environment by preventing leakage of electricity and was thus liable to compensate the petitioner. The court added that if there were any factual disputes, the court would have relegated the matter to the civil court. However, in the present case, since there were no factual disputes, the court directed TANGEDCO to pay Rs.50,000 to the petitioner within eight weeks.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.Saravanan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.T.Thambidurai Government Advocate, Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel, Mr. A.Albert James Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

Case Title: T.Muthu Irulappa v The State and Others

Case No: W.P(MD)No.15735 of 2024