JUDGMENT

B.N.KIRPAL, J.

(1) INTERVENTION applications on behalf of Indian Circus Federation are allowed.

(2) SPECIAL leave granted.

(3) THE main challenge in these appeals by special leave from the judgment of the Kerala High Court is to the validity of S. 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") and the Notification issued under S. 22 to the effect that no person shall train or exhibit any animals specified therein, namely, bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions.

(4) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 2nd March, 1991 a Notification under S. 22 was issued banning training and exhibition of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs. This Notification was challenged by the Indian Circus Federation before the High Court of Delhi. After the issuance of the Notification, a corrigendum was issued whereby does were excluded from the said Notification. Thereafter by an order dated 21st August, 1997, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court required the Government of India to have a fresh look into the Notification after taking into account materials placed before it by the petitioners therein and other authorities.

(5) A Committee was constituted by the Government of India consisting of Additional Inspector General (Wildlife), Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority, Additional IGF (Retd.) and Director, Animal Welfare. The said Committee gave a detailed report and in pursuance thereto the impugned Notification dated 14th October, 1998 was issued under S. 22 whereby exhibition and training of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions was prohibited.

(6) THE said Notification was challenged by filing a writ petition in the Kerala High Court and by the impugned judgment dated 6th June, 2000, the High Court has upheld the validity of the said Notification. It, inter alia, came to the conclusion that in exercise of judicial review it was not possible for the Court to examine the correctness of the decision of the Government in issuing the said Notification especially when it had not been shown that any relevant fact had been ignored or irrelevant fact taken into consideration. Hence, these appeals.

(7) THE main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants has been that apart from S.22 the Notification itself is arbitrary. It has been contended that S. 22 contains no guidelines on the basis of which the Central Government can issue a notification banning exhibition and training of any animal. It is also the case of the appellants that the Act does not provide for the animals to be taken away by the Government once such a notification is issued.

(8) THE preamble of the Act states that it was enacted with a view "to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals." Section 11 provides as to what amounts to cruelty to animals generally. Section 21 defines the words exhibit and train and reads as follows :

"21. "Exhibit" and "train" defined- In this Chapter, "exhibit" means exhibit at any entertainment to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets, and "train" means train for the purpose of any such exhibition, and the expression "exhibitor" and "trainer" have respectively the corresponding meanings."

(9) SECTIONS 22 and 24 with which we are concerned read as follows :

"22. Restriction on exhibition and training of performing animals.- No person shall exhibit or train- (i) any performing animal unless he is registered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; (ii) as a performing animal, any animal which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify as an animal which shall not be exhibited or trained as a performing animal."

"24. Power of Court to prohibit or restrict exhibition and training of pe