2018 Supreme(Mad) 868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
INDIRA BANERJEE, ABDUL QUDDHOSE, JJ.
S. Muralidharan - Petitioner
Versus
Arulmigu Suguvaneswarar Temple, Rep. by its Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Salem & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 9035 of 2018
Decided On : 16-04-2018
For the Petitioner:S.P. Chockalingam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Maharaja, Spl.G.P., Santhanaraman, Spl.G.P. (Forests).
The central legal point established in the judgment is that euthanasia of animals suffering from incurable diseases or injuries should be performed in accordance with the rules, regulations, and guidelines provided by the relevant statutory bodies.
Headnote:
EUTHANASIA - Animal Welfare - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 13(3) - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 11
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition sought orders to euthanize an elephant suffering from a serious painful disease and bedsores, kept by a temple under the control of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the elephant was in agony with remote chances of recovery, and therefore, ordered for euthanasia to relieve the animal from prolonged suffering.
Issues: The main issue was whether euthanasia should be performed on the elephant suffering from a serious painful disease and bedsores.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, specifically Section 13(3), and concluded that euthanasia should be administered as per the rules, regulations, and guidelines.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court ordered for the euthanasia of the elephant as per the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Indira Banerjee, J.
1. This writ petition by way of public interest litigation has been filed for orders directing the respondents to euthanize the elephant Rajeshwari kept by Arulmighu Suguvaneswarar Temple, on humanitarian grounds.
2. Arulmigu Suguvaneswarar Temple, which is under the control of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, has an elephant by the name of Rajeshwari. In the writ petition, it is stated that the elephant, Rajeshwari is suffering from a serious painful disease and has developed bedsores, which have started decaying.
3. Mr. Chockalingam appearing for the petitioner submitted that several Veterinarians including Forest Department Veterinarians, have tried to experiment on Rajeshwari. However, in an attempt to make Rajeshwari stand, by lifting her with an earthmover, Rajeshwari broke her tushes and limbs. The petitioner submits that the elephant is in agony and on humanitarian grounds, the elephant should be euthanized.
4. The attention of this Court has been drawn to Section 13 (3) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, set out hereinbelow:
13. Destruction of suffering animals. - (1) ...
(2) ...
(3) Any police officer above the rank of a constable or any person authorised by the State Government in this behalf who finds any animal so diseased or so severely injured or in such a physical condition that in his opinion it cannot be removed without cruelty, may, if the owner is absent or refuses his consent to the destruction of the animal, forthwith summon the veterinary officer in charge of that area in which the animal is found, and if the veterinary officer certifies that the animal is mortally injured or so severely injured or in such a physical condition that it would be cruel to keep it alive, the police officer or the person authorised, as the case may be, may, after obtaining orders from a Magistrate, destroy the animal injured or cause it to be destroyed in such manner as may be prescribed.
An order of the Magistrate to destroy an animal is not appealable. Sub-section (4) of Section 13 provides no appeal shall lie from any order of a Magistrate for destruction of an animal.
5. Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Department, submitted that the Animal Welfare Board of India, a statutory body of Government of India established in 1962 under Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1960, would have to be impleaded.
6. Our attention has also been drawn to a circular dated 25.11.2013 of the Chairman of the Animal Welfare Board of India, Major General (Retd.) Dr.RM.Kharb, AVSM, with regard to euthanasia of animals in pain and agony. As per the said circular, euthanasia is a humane method of alleviating animal suffering in cases of incurable disease or injury or debility. It is an effective and permanent way to relieve severe pain and suffering.
7. However, euthanasia must be performed by qualified veterinarians who have an understanding of anatomical landmarks and the equipment and drugs used for humane euthanasia of animals.
8. The Board has recommended the following procedure for euthanasia animals:
1. Sedate large animals using xylazine and small animals like dogs, using a combination of xylazine and Ketamine. Hmane and compassionate handling without causing any stress to the animal could be the only substitute to sedation and a qualified veterinarian can take this decision based on the mental and physical assessment of the animal and the skills of the animal handler.
2. Inject an overdoes of thiopentone intravenously (90 mg/kg BW) over a period of 10 seconds. In most of the cases it will stop the heart.
3. If the heart beat persists (especially in case of large animals), inject intravenously one of the following drugs immediately after the animal becomes unconscious (these three solutions MUST NOT be administered to conscious animals):
Saturated magnesium sulp