Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Dharam Chand Chaudhary & Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ.
Sonali Purewal - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P and others - Respondents
CWPIL No. 3 of 2015
Decided on: 21.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner:Ms. Vandana Misra Panta, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Shrawan Dogra, A.G with Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. Anup Rattan, Addl. A.Gs and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, ASGI for respondent No. 6.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty to prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, or cruelty on animals, as emphasized by the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the constitutional rights of animals under Article 21 and Article 51A(g) and (h).
Headnote:
Animal Rights - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - 3, 11, 21, 22, 51A(g), 51A(h) - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the constitutional rights of animals under Article 21 and Article 51A(g) and (h). The court emphasized the duty to prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, or cruelty on animals and held that animals have rights to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere, protection from human beings, and dignity. The court also directed the Animal Welfare Board of India and the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure the well-being of animals and prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an animal rights activist, filed a writ petition seeking a ban on bull fights and illegal betting in Himachal Pradesh, citing violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The respondents claimed that such activities had already been banned in most districts, and appropriate action had been taken in the reported cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues raised in the writ petition were covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which emphasized the duty to prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, or cruelty on animals. The court held that the rights guaranteed to animals under the Act and the Constitution cannot be taken away or curtailed, and directed the authorities to take steps to ensure the well-being of animals and prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.
Issues: The issues revolved around the practice of bull fights and animal fights in Himachal Pradesh, and the alleged violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court, which interpreted the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and emphasized the duty to prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, or cruelty on animals. The court also highlighted the constitutional rights of animals under Article 21 and Article 51A(g) and (h), and directed the authorities to take appropriate steps to ensure the well-being of animals and prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondents to ensure the implementation of the judgment of the Supreme Court and observe compliance with the provisions contained under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, particularly under Sections 3 and 11.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. (Oral)
The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
(a) This Hon’ble Court may ban the practice of bull fights/animal versus animal fights/human versus animal fights/birds fights across the State of Himachal Pradesh and direct the State Government and concerned officials like the Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, SDO and other officials to implement the said ban accordingly.
(b) That there should also be a complete ban on the illegal betting that goes on during the event of bill fighting/animal versus animal fights/human versus animal fights/birds fights.
(c) That any person organizing, abetting, inciting, betting and being willing spectators in the event of bull fights/animal versus animal fights/human versus animal fights/birds fights should be dealt with most strictly in accordance with the law.
(d) There should be a direction that the general public should be made aware and sensitized against the practice of bull fights/animal versus animal fights/human fights/bird fights through media both print and electronic.”
2. The petitioner claims herself to be an animal rights activist and has been working for animal rights for the last 10 years. The complaint is that in different parts of the State of Himachal Pradesh, bulls fights are being held contrary to the provisions contained under Sections 3 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ in short), enacted with the sole object to prevent the animals from infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering or cruelty on animals to prohibit the incidents like animal fights. News items Annexure P-1 (Colly.) published in the issues of Punjab Kesari, a Hindi daily dated 13.10.2014 and 17.11.2014 have been pressed into service to substantiate the relief sought in the writ petition.
3. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have come forward with the version that the activities like bull fights have already been banned and as per information collected from the District Superintendent of Police, no incident of bulls fights, animal versus animals fight, human versus animal fights and birds fights has been reported in Bilaspur, Chamba, Kinnaur, Kangra, Kullu, Lahaul & Spiti, Shimla, Solan, Sirmour and Una Districts. In the cases reported in Districts Hamirpur and Mandi, appropriate action as per the provisions contained under the Act has been taken. Nothing, however, has been said in the reply qua the correctness or otherwise of the news items Annexure P-1 (Colly.).
4. We need not to go to every factual details and also legal aspect because the points raised in this writ petition are squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India versus Nagaraja and others, (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 547. The apex Court while interpreting the object and scope of the Act and what should be the role and duty of the Court has observed as under:
“33. The PCA Act is a welfare legislation which has to be construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of the Act and the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is trite law that, in the matters of welfare legislation, the provisions of law should be liberally construed in favour of the weak and infirm. Court also should be vigilant to see that benefits conferred by such remedial and welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle devices. Court has got the duty that, in every case, where ingenuity is expanded to avoid welfare legislations, to get behind the smoke-screen and discover the true state of affairs. Court can go behind the form and see the substance of the devise for which it has to pierce the veil and examine whether the guidelines or the regulations are framed so as to achieve some other purpose than the welfare of the animals. Regulations or guidelines, whether statutory or otherwise, if they purport to dilute or defeat the welfare legislation and the constitutional principles, Cou
