Back
1996 Supreme(Bom) 710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
R.K. Batta R.M.S. Khandeparkar, JJ.
People for Animals through Mrs. Norma Alvares another ..... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 347 of 1996, decided on 20-12-1996.
Advocates appeared :
M.S. Sonak, for the petitioners.
V.B. Nadkarni Advocate General with G.U. Bhobe, Govt. Adv. for the respondents.
A. Viegas, for the Intervenor.
Headnote:Article 51-A-5ee Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1968-Sectlon 11 (1) (m) (n).
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1968
Section 11 (1) (m). (n)-Constitution of India, Article 51-APublic Interest litigation-Prevention of cruelty to animals hooded to fight In bull fights-5uch fights sometimes results In injuries to animals and sometimes even in death of animals-Thus cruelty is involved in bull fights-Held. State must take preventive action to avoid such bull fights-Directions issued.-It is thus clear that the enactment of the law to prevent cruelty to the animals is not an end in itself. What is more important is the implementation of that Act and to see to it that the activities which are prohibited under the said Act do not take place in the State and in case of infringement of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1968, to take strict action against the offenders. Likewise it is also obligatory upon the respondents to see to it that the provisions dealing with the prohibition of certain activities are effectively enforced by preventing such activities. Failure on the part of the respondents to take preventive measures will certainly amount to tolerance of violation of the provisions of the said Act and such tolerance will render legal provisions contained in the said Act nugatory and also will encourage lawlessness.
It cannot be disputed that all animals are born with an equal claim for the life without any cruelty to them. Perhaps if this right was given proper recognition by the human beings, there would have been no necessity to bring on the statute book under the said Act. Unfortunately, even though the said Act has been brought in force in the State, still there appears to be either lack of courage or wilful negligence on the part of the respondents to implement the provisions of the said Act and. therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioners are justified in making grievance about the same. The respondents cannot shirk their responsibilities to prevent the cruelty to the animals. In fact, to prevent such cruelty to animals it is obligatory upon the respondents to take action under the various provisions contained in the said Act.
The inaction or the failure on the part of the respondents to take necessary precaution to prevent the cruelty to the animals is evident from the fact that the law enforcing agency is itself encouraging illegality and violation of the provisions contained in the said Act either actively or passively, one cannot blame the petitioners for approaching this Court for necessary action. In such situation it is the duty of the respondents to give full effect to the provisions contained in the said Act in letter and spirit. Considering the fact that the bull fights result in injuries and consequently cruelty to the animals as well as sometimes to the human beings it is the paramount duty of the respondents to take preventive action to avoid such bull fights. Thus, the records disclose that despite repeated reminders on the part of the petitioners in the matter the respondents have failed to take action. The facts brought on record are not disputed by the respondents.
Considering the facts of the cases, it is therefore, necessary to issue directions to the respondents to take all the steps to give full effect to the provisions contained in the said Act and thereby to prevent cruelty to the animals thereby prohibiting bull fights and all other fights of like nature involving animals including birds which can cause injuries and cruelty to the animals.
2.The petitioners claim that the bull fights are recent introduction in the State of Goa and though initially, no money or gambling was associated with it, in the recent times, due to the patronage of local politicians, the frequency of bull fights have increased enormously and they have become completely commercialised. Newspapers' advertisements of bull fights are openly published to attract more and more spectators. On any given day, there would be fights between 6 to 10 bulls and in the process, bulls get severely hurt and wounded and further they also become insane. Specific procedures are utilised by the bull owners to instigate the bulls to fight with each other and the same is described, in detail, in the articles published in 'Goa Today' and a daily by name 'Herald', copies of which are annexed to the petition as Exhibits 'A' and 'B' respectively. Accordingly, two bulls or buffaloes specially trained and bred for this game only fight against each other, with their owner or trainer standing behind them goading them on. At regular intervals, either mud is rubbed on the back of the animal or water is poured on its back. This is done to agitate or cool down the animal as the need may be. It is further contended by the petitioners that several social evils have sprung up and are associated with events of bull fights and they include large scale of illegal betting relating to the fortunes and fate of the individual bull. It is their case that, in fact, the bull fights are popular because of betting that goes with them. Moreover, it is not always fun. Besides the fact that they prove fatal to some animals, even spectators have occasionally fallen victims. In some cases, the spectators have been trampled by the stampeding animals. It is stated that the situation gets worse when the defeated bull starts running away from the field and the victor charges him. Such bull fights are locally known as 'dhirio' and they are in direct contravention of the provisions contained in section 11(1)(m) and section 11(1)(n) of the said Act and that the authorities are duty-bound to take action against the said offenders.
3.It is further contended by the petitioners that the petitioners addressed a letter dated 25th June 1996 to the Chief Secretary of Government of Goa, Panaji, bringing to his notice the cruelty suffered by the animals, who are goaded into killing each other in the process of bull fights and resulting
