IMPORTANT POINT
Notification dated 14-10-1998 issued under Section 22 (ii) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act banning exhibition or training as performing animal of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions suffers no constitutional invalidity.

Headnote:(i) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Section 22(ii) - Notification dated 14-10-1998 banning the training and exhibition as a performing animals; bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions – Petition challenging constitutional validity - Impugned notification issued after forming an opinion upon consideration of report which was based on relevant material - Court under the guise of judicial review would not interfere with the decision made by expert body. (Para 4)
       (ii) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Section 22(ii) - Notification dated 14-10-1988 banning the training and exhibition as a performing animals; bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions Constitutional validity challenged on plea that no hearing was given to petitioners thereby violating the principles of natural justice issuance of statutory notification is "subordinate legislation" and is not subject to rules of natural justice unless provided in the statute Petitioners did not have a right of hearing before issuance of statutory notification. (Para 6)
       (iii) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Section 22(ii) - Notification dated 14-10-1988 banning training and exhibition as performing animals; bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions Constitutional validity challenged on plea that it was discriminatory as ban applied to Circus only and left out the zoos - Camparison sought to be made out between circus and zoo was unrealistic and inexpedient - Animals in zoo could not be equated with animals in circus and contention was devoid of merits - Same yardstick was applicable where a person exhibited and trained animals for a show where public was invited even without tickets - Impugned notification was not arbitrary or discriminatory. (Paras 7 and 8)
       (iv) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 Section 22(ii) - Notification banning training and exhibition as performing animals, bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions - Challenged on plea that it infringed fundamental right of petitioners to carry on their trade or business under Art 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India - Right would not permit carrying activity if it resulted in in11iction of unnecessary pain and suffering on specified animals - There was a direct and proximate nexus between prohibition of training and exhibition of specified animals and object sought to be achieved - Impugned notification was in public interest in tune with Directive Principles embodied in Articles 48-A and 51(g) of Constitution of India - While considering the reasonableness of restrictions, Court has to keep in mind directive principles of State Policy – Question of framing rules to regulate exhibition, training and transportation of animals could arise only if pain and sufferings which these animals had to undergo was considered to be necessary Power to issue notification was independent of the rules - Impugned notification suffered no infirmities. (Paras 9 to 11)
       Result: Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

K. Narayana Kurup, J. - By virtue of the powers conferred under sub-clause (ii) of Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 (for short the Act) the Government of India had issued a notification dated 2-3-1991 banning the training and exhibition of five animals viz. bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and dogs. Subsequently a corrigendum dated 7-8-1991 was issued by which the ban on training and exhibition of dogs was withdrawn. The validity of the said notifications were challenged by the Indian Circus Federation (ICF). New Delhi by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 890/91 before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi by order dated 20-3-1991 stayed the operation of the notification dated 2-3-1991. Later, the High Court of Delhi after hearing the writ petitioner at length, by its order dated 21-8-1997 ordered that:

"The Government may take up the Notification dated 2-3-1991 for consideration afresh. It may take into consideration such materials as may be available with it or it may choose to collect through any of the authentic agencies or such other agency or committee of experts as it may choose to appoint. The petitioners and such other organisations, as may volunteer themselves, will be at liberty to place before the Government of India for its consideration such materials as they may deem relevant and having bearing on the issue involved."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court, the Govt. Of India constituted' a committee consisting of:

Addl. IGF (WL)

Chairman

Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

Member

Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority

Member

Shri S.C. Dey, Addl. IGF (Rtd.)

Member

Director, Animal Welfare

Member Secretary

The said committee after hearing all the affected parties submitted its report to the Central Government. The Central Government on the basis of the report of the Committee, the advice tendered by the Animal Welfare Board of India and the materials placed before it and that which was flied before-the High Court of Delhi, issued a notification dated 14-10-1998 specifying that the following animals shall not be exhibited or trained as a performing animal with effect from the date of publication of the notification bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions. The Indian Circus Federation thereafter flied an application under Section 151 of the CPC in the above Writ: Petition before the High Court of Delhi praying that the notification dated 14-10-1998 be stayed during the pendency' of the writ petition. Simultaneously another writ petition No. 6490/98 was flied by the All India Circus Employees Union before the High Court of Delhi challenging the said notification. In the meantime, the application under Section 151 C.P.C. flied in Civil Writ Petition No. 890/91 came up for hearing on 16-12-1998 on which date the High Court of Delhi dismissed the application for stay flied by the ICF and prima facie upheld the validity of the notification dated 14-10-1998. Later, the Circus Employees Union flied an application dated 9-2-1999 bearing C.M. No. 2213/ 99 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6490/98 seeking to withdraw the said writ petition. Consequent on the said application for withdrawal, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12-3-1999. The present batch of writ petitions were flied before this Court in the year 1999 evidently to over-reach the order dated 16-12-1998 by which the High Court of Delhi had upheld the validity of the notification dated 14-10-1998 which is marked as Ext. P-1 in all these writ petitions. A learned single Judge before whom the writ petitions came up for hearing referred the matter to the Division Bench having regard to the national importance and any interference with the above order will affect large number of persons inside and outside the State. Accordingly, the petitions were placed before us for hearing. The challenge in these original petitions is directed against the validity of Ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTNotification dated 14-10-1998 issued under Section 22 (ii) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act banning exhibition or training as performing animal of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions suffers no constitutional invalidity.

Cases Referred (10)

IMPORTANT POINT
Notification dated 14-10-1998 issued under Section 22 (ii) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act banning exhibition or training as performing animal of bears, monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions suffers no constitutional invalidity.