1. Seeking implementation of provisions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 by various States. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2008 Supreme(SC) 1991
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., A.K. MATHUR, J.
Geeta Seshamani – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 440 of 2000
Decided On : 06-08-2008
Important Points
The court mandated that states must constitute State Animal Welfare Boards and establish district-level Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs) to ensure the effective implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and its associated rules.
Subject
Environmental Law - Animal Welfare
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001 - Rule 3 - Implementation of welfare provisions - Non-constitution of State Animal Welfare Boards and district-level societies - Court directed the States to constitute State Animal Welfare Boards within three months and ensure the establishment of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals in every district as contemplated under the Rules. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed alleging that the provisions of the relevant Act were not fully implemented by various States. The primary grievance was that State Animal Welfare Boards had not been constituted in many States, leading to ineffective implementation of the Act and Rules, and that societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals were not established in every district as required under the Rules.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed States that had not yet constituted State Animal Welfare Boards to do so within a period of three months and further directed that societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals be constituted in every district as contemplated under the Rules.
Issues: Whether the failure to constitute State Animal Welfare Boards and district-level societies hindered the effective implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The effective implementation of the provisions of the Act and the associated Rules requires the mandatory constitution of State Animal Welfare Boards and the establishment of district-level societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed alleging that the provisions of the relevant Act were not fully implemented by various States. The primary grievance was that State Animal Welfare Boards had not been constituted in many States, leading to ineffective implementation of the Act and Rules, and that societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals were not established in every district as required under the Rules.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed States that had not yet constituted State Animal Welfare Boards to do so within a period of three months and further directed that societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals be constituted in every district as contemplated under the Rules.
Issues: Whether the failure to constitute State Animal Welfare Boards and district-level societies hindered the effective implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The effective implementation of the provisions of the Act and the associated Rules requires the mandatory constitution of State Animal Welfare Boards and the establishment of district-level societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The petitioner argues lack of full implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 by various States (!) . - The petition contends that many States have not constituted State Animal Welfare Boards and that SPCAs in every district are not established as contemplated under Rule 3 of the 2001 Rules (!) . - The Court directed states that have not constituted State Animal Welfare Boards to do so within three months and to ensure SPCAs are established in every district (!) . - A copy of the order was to be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all States to take necessary actions (!) . - The matter concerned disposal of the writ petition and management of funds (Rs. 1,11,363/- in FDR) for the Delhi State Animal Welfare Board as it matures (!) . - The writ petition was disposed of accordingly (!) .
What is the scope of State compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and related Rules as addressed in this petition?
What is the remedy or directive imposed on States that have not constituted State Animal Welfare Boards and SPCAs in every district?
What measures were directed by the Supreme Court to be taken within a specified period to ensure establishment of State Animal Welfare Boards and SPCAs?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- public interest litigation (Para 1)
-
writ jurisdiction
- statutory interpretation
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.K. Manohar.
For the Respondents: Ashok Bhan, Sunita Sharma, S.W.A. Qadri, D.S. Mahra.
For the Chhattisgarh : Suparna Srivastava, Nidhi Minocha, Rajesh Srivastava.
For the MCD : Sanjiv Sen, Praveen Swarup.
For the State of Andhra Pradesh : Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla.
For the Mizoram : K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish.
For the NDMC : Surya Kant.
For the Maharashtra : Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha G. Nair.
For the State of Madhya Pradesh : C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samataray, Vairagya Vardhan.
For the Nagaland : U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Sumita Hazarika.
For the Haryana : Manjit Singh, Mr. Harikesh Singh, T.V. George.
For the Assam : Riku Sarma.
For the Manipur : Kh. Nobin Singh, David Rao, S. Biswaji Meitei, Vijay Prakash.
For the West Bengal : Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma.
For the Pondicherry : V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian.
For the Bihar and Tripura : Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Rituraj Biswas.
For the Uttar Pradesh : Pramod Swarup, Aloka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma.
For the Punjab : Jayashree Anand, Karunakar Mahalik.
For the Rajasthan : Naveen Kumar Singh, Shaswat Gupta, Aruneshwar Gupta.
For the Sikkim : A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur, Arputham Aruna.
For the Meghalaya : Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh.
For the Himachal Pradesh : J.S. Attri.
For the AWBI : Raj Panjwani, Vijay Panjwani.
For the Jharkhand : Rajesh Pathak, B.B. Singh.
For the Arunachal Pradesh : Rituraj.
For the Gujarat : Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behra, K. Enatoli Sema, Somnath, Shreekant N. Terdal, A. Subhashini, Anil Katiyar, Rajesh Prasad Singh, R. Sathish, Surya Kant, Anil Nag, Rajeev Sharma, R. Ayyam Perumal, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ranjan Mukherjee, Annam D.N. Rao, D. Bharathi Reddy, A. Rohen Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla, Sanjay R. Hegde, Subramonium Prasad, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, V.N. Raghupathy, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Rachana Srivastava, Rajesh Srivastava, C.D. Singh, Kamlendra Mishra, Mohanprasad Meharia, P.N. Gupta, Anis Suhrawardy, S. Mehdi Imam, Naresh Kumar, Ramesh Babu M.R.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.K. Manohar.
For the Respondents: Ashok Bhan, Sunita Sharma, S.W.A. Qadri, D.S. Mahra.
For the Chhattisgarh : Suparna Srivastava, Nidhi Minocha, Rajesh Srivastava.
For the MCD : Sanjiv Sen, Praveen Swarup.
For the State of Andhra Pradesh : Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla.
For the Mizoram : K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish.
For the NDMC : Surya Kant.
For the Maharashtra : Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha G. Nair.
For the State of Madhya Pradesh : C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samataray, Vairagya Vardhan.
For the Nagaland : U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Sumita Hazarika.
For the Haryana : Manjit Singh, Mr. Harikesh Singh, T.V. George.
For the Assam : Riku Sarma.
For the Manipur : Kh. Nobin Singh, David Rao, S. Biswaji Meitei, Vijay Prakash.
For the West Bengal : Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma.
For the Pondicherry : V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian.
For the Bihar and Tripura : Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Rituraj Biswas.
For the Uttar Pradesh : Pramod Swarup, Aloka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma.
For the Punjab : Jayashree Anand, Karunakar Mahalik.
For the Rajasthan : Naveen Kumar Singh, Shaswat Gupta, Aruneshwar Gupta.
For the Sikkim : A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur, Arputham Aruna.
For the Meghalaya : Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh.
For the Himachal Pradesh : J.S. Attri.
For the AWBI : Raj Panjwani, Vijay Panjwani.
For the Jharkhand : Rajesh Pathak, B.B. Singh.
For the Arunachal Pradesh : Rituraj.
For the Gujarat : Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behra, K. Enatoli Sema, Somnath, Shreekant N. Terdal, A. Subhashini, Anil Katiyar, Rajesh Prasad Singh, R. Sathish, Surya Kant, Anil Nag, Rajeev Sharma, R. Ayyam Perumal, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Ranjan Mukherjee, Annam D.N. Rao, D. Bharathi Reddy, A. Rohen Singh, Amit Kr. Chawla, Sanjay R. Hegde, Subramonium Prasad, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, V.N. Raghupathy, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Rachana Srivastava, Rajesh Srivastava, C.D. Singh, Kamlendra Mishra, Mohanprasad Meharia, P.N. Gupta, Anis Suhrawardy, S. Mehdi Imam, Naresh Kumar, Ramesh Babu M.R.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges States not fully implementing Act; States claim Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals already constituted. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court notes failure to constitute State Animal Welfare Boards and district-level Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (Para 3 )
4. Statutory obligation exists to constitute State Animal Welfare Boards and district-level Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Directs States lacking boards to constitute them within three months and ensure district-level Societies are established. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. Are State Animal Welfare Boards mandatory under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?
Yes, State Animal Welfare Boards must be constituted; failure to do so impedes effective implementation of the Act and Rules. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Must Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals be established in every district?
Yes, Rule 3 of the 2001 Rules requires Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to be constituted in every district. (Para 3 , 4 )
8. What is the court's remedy for non-compliance with animal welfare laws by States?
The court directs non-compliant States to constitute the required boards and societies within a period of three months. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the provisions contained under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are not fully implemented by the various States. All the State Governments were impleaded as party respondents and some of the States have filed their responses.
2. Heard petitioner's counsel.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in many States the State Animal Welfare Boards are not constituted and, therefore, implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules are not done effectively. It is also pointed that the Animal Welfare Boards in the States are not taking effective steps to establish Societies for prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs) in every district as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001. Some of the States have submitted that they have filed a statement to the effect that these SPCAs had already been constituted in all the States.
4. We direct the States, which have not constituted the State Animal Welfare Boards to constitute within a period of three months and also to see that the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs) be also constituted in every district as contemplated under the Rules.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the all the States to do the needful.
6. The sum of Rs. 1,11,363/- which is lying in F.D.R. may be made available to the Delhi State Animal Welfare Board as and when the same matures.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
