SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Ker) 632

High Court of Kerala
K. Narayana Kurup, K.V. Sankaranarayanan, JJ.
N R Nair & Ors - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors - Respondent
O.P. No. 155 of 1999
Decided On : 06-06-2000

The impugned notification banning the exhibition and training of animals was upheld as it was based on relevant materials and in line with the Act's objective of preventing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals.

Headnote:

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act - Ban on Exhibition and Training of Animals - Section 22 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the validity of a notification banning the exhibition and training of certain animals under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The court considered materials submitted by various organizations, including the Animal Welfare Board of India, and upheld the notification, finding that it was based on relevant materials and in line with the Act's objective of preventing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals.

Fact of the Case:

The Government of India issued a notification banning the training and exhibition of certain animals under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Indian Circus Federation challenged the validity of the notifications, arguing that they were unsupported by adequate materials, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental right to carry on their occupation. The court heard arguments from both sides and dismissed the petitions as devoid of merit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned notification was based on relevant materials and in line with the Act's objective of preventing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. It held that the petitioners had no fundamental right to carry on a trade or business in exhibiting or training the specified animals, and that the notification was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Issues: The issues involved in the case included the validity of the notification under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the petitioners' fundamental right to carry on their occupation, and the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned notification was issued in conformity with the Act's objective of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals. It also found that the petitioners had no fundamental right to carry on a trade or business in exhibiting or training the specified animals, and that the notification was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court upheld the notification dated 14-10-1998 and dismissed the writ petitions challenging its validity.

JUDGMENT

N. Narayana Kurup, J.

1. By virtue of the powers conferred under Sub-Section (ii) of Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 (For short 'the Act'), the Govt. 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 dt- 2-3-1991. Later, the High Court of Delhi after hearing the writ petitioner at length, by its order dated 21-8-1997 order that:

"The Government may take up the Notification dt. 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:

1. Addl. IGF (WL) -- Chairman

2. Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun -- Member

3. Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority -- Member

4. Shri S.C. Dey, Add. IGF (Rtd.) -- Member

5. 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 filed 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 Hons. The Indian Circus Federation thereafter filed 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 filed 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. filed 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 filed by the ICF and prima facie upheld the validity of the notification dated 14-10-1998. Later, the Circus Employees Union filed an application dated 9-2-1999 bearing CM 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 filed before this Court in the year 1999 evidently to overreach 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 petitio






































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top