Open Access Research Article
INTROSPECTING THE ADEQUACY OF PENALTY FOR CRUELTY TO ANIMAL- THE LEGAL VOID
Published Paper
Article Details
INTROSPECTING THE
ADEQUACY OF PENALTY FOR CRUELTY TO ANIMAL- THE LEGAL VOID
AUTHORED BY - DR. MERCY K
KHAUTE
ABSTRACT
In 2020, a
pregnant elephant bit an explosives-filled fruit and died. In Jodhpur a man
allegedly ties a dog to his car, simply to drag it around the city. Acts of stoning or beating animals is
not an uncommon sight at times such inhumane acts takes on perverse and grotesque forms.The subject of animal welfare falls
within the realms of Concurrent list [1]leading pretty
much to a situation where the laws for welfare of animals have not gained
predominance much as the issue requires.
Not until lately, India has witnessed uproar among lovers of animals and
animal rights activists against the absence of penalties proportionate to such
treatment on animals.[2] The Prevention of
Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (‘PCA’) widely criminalises actions of cruelty inflicted by
offenders. However the imposition of penalty under the PCA is highly
insufficient for the pain and harm inflicted on the sentient beings, which thus
becomes inevitable that the Act must provide pragmatic penalties to fulfil the
preventive objective of the legislation
Towards this idea,
the current framework and the application of PCA is perused in part I of the
paper. Thereafter, the common law principle of ‘Doctrine of Proportionality’ is
adopted to study the suitability of the PCA in countering the injuries inflicted to animals and the
corresponding penalties. Part III examines the effect of non-cognisability under the Act. The
article concludes with the latest development and proposals on the Act.
Keywords- Animals,
prevention, cruelty, penalties, amendments.
I. THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY ON ANIMAL ACT (PCA)- A BRIEF
OVERVIEW
The PCA 1960
replaced the Act of 1890[3]
through the tireless efforts of persons like Rukmini Devi, a renowned
Bharatnatyam danced who through the language of her dances was able to
highlight the necessities to protect animals.The new Act was introduced as a
private member bill, and moved by the heartfelt speech delivered by her in 1954[4],
the then Prime Minister, Pandit Jawarhlal Nehru set up a
committee especially designed to look into the aspect of animal protection and
their welfare, thereby developing a comprehensive document that will address
the issues that were addressed by Smt. Rukmini Devi.
Some of the key
highlights of the current PCA is that it contains broad framework for penalising any form
of cruelty against animals. To this end the Animal Welfare Board of India
(AWBI) has been set up whereby the powers and duties of of the board have been
laid down to meet the objective of the law. Amongst the various provisions, the
primary section that imposes punishments for instances of cruelty against
animals is provided in section 11[5],
the provision also describes various forms of cruelty on animals. Several
specific offences that are listed in the said section are considered to be to
be non-cognisable offences.[6]
The fine for these offences is fixed at
a maximum of meagre fifty rupees in case of first instance of offence (without
any jail term), and a sum of hundred rupees in cases of the offence being
committed the second time.[7]
Given the
financial development India has witness over the years, a meagre sum of fifty-rupee
as penalty only appears to be a mockery and by any standard of measurement is
highly insufficient. the instances of cruelty on antis have been witnessed at
rather inhuman scale, an instance where a dog had been thrown off the terrace
by a resident in the city of Chennai.[8]
This case serves as a classic example of the PCA being a very weak legislation. Soon after the
arrest was made, the accused person was granted bail and a sum of Rs. 50 only
was paid by him in accordance with the provision of the law.[9]
It may not be wrong to state that the law at this juncture had been a disabling
factor that constraint the law keepers to take stringent action against the
perpetrators. Violent instance of puppies being burnt alive[10], slaughtered,[11]
etc. was also reported around the same time. One must admire the initiative to
prevent if not end such atrocities on the sentient beings, the #nomore50
movement has been started by animal lovers and animal rights activists urging
the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that the law imposes
adequate penalties and the punishments be made more stringent on this subject
matter[12]
In the wake of
raising instances of cruelty on animals, the Smt. Poonam Mahajan, member of the
Parliament had introduced a private member bill on the need to amend the law.[13]
The Bill proposed amendments especially in the imposition of higher fines and
penalties so as to bring it in tandem with the objective of the law thereby
ensuring the deterrence against any act of cruelty on the animals, of any
form. Angel Trust[14],
an animal rights NGO filed a public interest litigation being filed at the
court against the rising instances of harm caused to the animals in various forms, While the Apex court had issued a notice
to the Central Government to inquire into the inadequacy of PCA,.[15]
Based on the incidents listed in the
petition, the Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, directed the government that it shall in a time bound manner
determine the adequacy of the penalties.[16]
However with
regards to the aspect of penalty, there are three setbacks that manifests
predominantly - the offences undertake PCA being non-cognisant in nature, the
penalty amount being grossly and the ease in obtaining bail for the offender
under the Act. The following discussion here from is an attempt to highlight
the inadequacy of the PCA through the application of theories and principles.
II. SENTENCING POLICIES UNDER THE PCA
Animals have
played a significant role in our societies ever since mankind has been able to
decipher history, it is certainly iswell deserving of deliberations that the
law must be one that can effectually protect the rights of these beings. The PCA being the sole primary law must be postured to sufficiently achieve its objective of animal welfare
and protection in accordance with the principles of welfare laid down in
our Constitution. Unfortunately, the PC
Act in the present scenario, is unable to achieve the objectives
envisioned due the inherent flaws in the
Act itself. To dress the flaws, discourse on the penalty and punishments
becomes essential which is discussed in the following part.
A. NEGLIGABLE PENALTIES
The standard
of penalties need to be measured against the gravity of the offences by
taking into consideration the objectives of imposing the penalty.[17]
The PCA provides fifty-rupee as penalty
for offences committed against animals.[18]
To establish the efficacy of the penalty, the penalising provisions are
required to be scaled against the scheme of the Act towards which the ‘Proportionality
doctrine may be applied as the yardstick to draw a clearer idea on this issue.
In India this principle has not been codified like other jurisdictions of
United States, Canada orGermany, but rather diffused in most laws as a feature of administrative law.[19]
This doctrine of
proportionality in the realms of - criminal law jurisprudence proposes that, the punishments should be
pitted against the gravity of the
offence committed,[20]
in order that the conformity between the
two fulfils a twofold purpose,[21]
this will ensure firstly that the penalty imposed towards the perpetrator is
fair and in accordance with the law, and secondly, it will secure the assurance
from the citizens of the performance of their obligation towards the law.[22]
To quote Immanuel Kant on
the theory of imbibing justice in punishment stated “Juridical
punishment can never be administered merely as a means for promoting another
good either with regard to the criminal himself or to civil society, but must
in all cases be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has
committed a crime.”[23]
It therefore becomes imperative especially in a democratic set up that
punishments when imposed should not be disproportionate to the crime committed.
To this end, one may say, acts as a caution against the arbitrary deprivation
and wrongful interpretation of the idea of justice. Pitted against this
backdrop, the essence of penalties is also to imply deterrence which fails to
be projected in the the PCA as the penalty fails to qualify to be considered
even harsh leave alone punitive from the perspective of the accused nor from
the perspective of the society! Viewed from the angle of proportionality, the
punishment under the Act fails to meet the standard of crime committed which is
an offence against the State in general as the state is duty bound to protect
the beings.[24]
and so prevent the occurrence of such crimes.[25]
Viewed from such
an angle it thus becomes imperative to determine the perspective of the
citizens presumably by looking into the underlying principle set forth by the
Act which is chiefly to prevent cruelty of all forms against animals. Various
provisions of the Act enumerates this objective, the primary highlight being
the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the PCA (‘Statement of Objects’), read
with the relevant provisions in the Indian Constitution. The Statement of Objects in
short states that the PCA aim is “to
prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to amend
the laws relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals”.[26]
During the drafting of the PCA 1960,
this objective was the foundational inspiration to counter the inadequacies in
the old Act. It is disheartening to notice, that the objective of the PC Act
has failed to fructify as was envisioned.
In continuation on
the objective of the Act, needless to mention the Constitution of India ought
to be looked into as well. The
forty-second amendment Act in 1976 two provisions were added which are Article
48A and Article 51A(g) that advocates for protection of animals. In Part IV
under the Directive Principle of State Policy, Article 48A, states that “the
State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard
the forests and wild life of the country.”[27]
Under Part IV A, Article 51A(g), imposed the Fundamental Duty on every citizen “to
protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures.”[28]
The two provision specifically emphasises the importance to protect animals and
maintain their well beings. The
judiciary has also play crucial role in reasserting the emphasis on this
subject matter and that it is in public interest that determines the adequacy
of laws- in general. In Buffalo Traders
Welfare Association v. Maneka Gandhi,[29]
the contention was on the question whether unhygienic conditions in animal slaughterhouses were violative of the
Constitutional provisions Articles, the Delhi High Court delivered an obiter
that Article 48A and Article 51A(g) may not be strictly structured to have the
force of law but nevertheless the relevancy of these provisions is
unquestionable where there is the involvement of large public interest.[30]
The case of Animal
Welfare Board of India v. A.
Nagaraja (‘Nagaraja’)[31]
provides a landmark in regard to this issue.
The said Articles of 48(A) and 51 A(g) were read in light of section 11
of the PCA, and held that it is the duty of every person to not just uphold the
well being idealistically but to also ensure the physical well being of these
animals. [32]
The “well-being” can also be interpreted as the prevention of infliction of any
form cruelty. The Apex Court held that;
“Sections 3, 11(1)(a) & (o) and other related provisions
have to be understood and read along with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution which cast
fundamental duties on every citizen to have “compassion for
living creatures”. Parliament, by incorporating Article 51A(g), has again reiterated and re-emphasised
the fundamental duty on human beings towards every living creature. All living
creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live
peacefully and right to protect their well-being which encompasses protection
from beating, kicking, over-driving, over-loading, tortures, pain and suffering
etc. Human life, we often say, is not like animal existence, a view having anthropocentric bias, forgetting the fact that animals
have also got intrinsic worth and value. Section 3 of the PCA Act has acknowledged those
rights and the said section along with Section 11 cast a duty on persons having charge or
care of animals to take reasonable measures to ensure well- being of the
animals and to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering.”[33]
Subsequently, a
plethora of decisions began to emerge that accorded e tremendous amount of importance on “a duty-based” approach as against the general “rights based” on the matters pertaining to
the prevention and ensuring of animal well being. In this regard the case of Animals
and Birds Charitable Trust & Ors. v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.,[34]
provides a riveting approach wherein the Bombay High Court encapsulated several
aspects of cruelty against animals;
[…] Under Clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India,
it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to have compassion for living
creatures which means concern for their suffering, sympathy, kindliness, etc.;
Clause (h) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India provides that it shall
be the duty of every citizen to develop humanism which includes sensibility for
our species; Clauses (g) and (h) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India
will have to be read into the PCA Act and especially into Sections 3 and 11
thereof; Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects any disturbance from
the basic environment which includes animal life which is necessary for human
life; So far as the animals are concerned, life means something more than mere
survival or existence or instrumental value for human beings, but to lead a
life with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity; Right to live in a healthy
and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against
inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals
under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Clause (g) of Article 51A of
the Constitution of India; Right to dignity and fair treatment is not confined
to human beings alone, but it applies to animals as well; Right not to be
beaten, kicked or overridden is also a right recognised by Sections 3 and 11 of
the PCA Act.[35]
Similarly in the recent High Court case of People
for Animals v. Md Mohazzim,[36]
the Court followed the ratio in Nagaraja, and held that it is the inherent and
fundamental right of birds to fly. Although Justice Manmohan Singh mindful
mentioned that the order passed by the
court involved caging of birds hence the order is restricted only to birds. He
compendiously opined that;
[…] running the trade
of birds is in violation of the rights of the birds. They deserve sympathy.
Nobody is caring as to whether they have been inflicting cruelty or not despite
of settled law that birds have a fundamental right to fly and cannot be caged
and will have to be set free in the sky. Actually, they are meant for the same.
But on the other hand, they are exported illegally in foreign countries without
availability of proper food, water, medical aid and other basic amenities
required as per law. Birds have fundamental rights including the right to live
with dignity and they cannot be subjected to cruelty by anyone including claim
made by the respondent. Therefore, I am clear in mind that all the birds have
fundamental rights to fly in the sky and all human beings have no right to keep
them in small cages for the purposes of their business or otherwise. The
petition requires consideration.[37]
At this juncture, it is important to note
that due deliberation is laid on the importance of
issues pertaining to slaughter of
animals in the context of duty to
protect and not intentionally inflict harm. The court have re-emphasised on incidents that involve the gruesome slaughter of
cattle, that the duty to prevent such incidents lay with the humans and none
other.[38] Assumably the justification and
rationale for adopting this approach by the courts may be owing to the fact that humans have
conscientiousness and the capability of judging their actions as either being right for
wrong. Therefore, one way to view this could be that the infection of cruelty
on non humans by human beings, it is undeniable that every person is aware of his/her action, and the cruelty meted out on the sentient
beings have been done with the knowledge that the act is inappropriate and
wrong.
The awareness and knowledge
in humans to understand their actions dispenses question on the Scienter Rule. The Scienter Rule has been typically developed in common law with
the purpose of imputing liability on humans themselves for all the actions[39]and conduct on animals[40][41]. Although the rule, originally was not
designed to - benefit animals per se but rather
to acknowledge animals as property, the underlying theory was that “knowledge
of wrongness of a conduct should be punished.” Taking this rule in the context
of cruelty on animals in India it may be asserted that humans blessed with
wisdom of comprehending the nature of their
actions, the incorrectness of their conduct every time animals are inflicted
with cruelty, which can barely find justifications. This also means that one may conclude on the theory of Peter
Singer that when the rights based model fails to do good, the duty based model is befitting to
understand the subject of animal rights.[42] And because of the fact that humans
possess conscientiousness, there is a
higher obligation on humans to take mindful actions towards the non-human beings. Owing to this peculiar position bestowed on humans it only
appears appropriate that the meagre penalty for cruel actions on the animals to not be considered enough for their sufferings. The awareness and
knowledge of the improperness of the wrongful action itself warrants penalty higher than a merge sum of fifty rupees imposed under the PCA.
Evidently, it is
thus quite obvious bearing in mind the Constitutional provisions read with the
objectives of the PCA, assisted by case laws provided an indication that
protection of animals is an essential responsibility and obligation on both the
State and citizens alike. Therefore, in view of the penalty laid down in the
Act is certainly un equivalent to the duty. It is not wrong to assert that the
penalty, suffering caused by the act of cruelty fails to match up thereby
failing to adhere to the doctrine of proportionality in this regard.
Further, the
doctrine of proportionality is essential to be complied alongside n every form
of penalties and or restrictions that may or are to be imposed by the law to
satisfy the theory of deterrence[43]
as described by Jeremy Bentham, proponent of the deterrence theory rightfully described it as a having the ethos
of utilitarian function.[44]
Renzo writes “Bentham asserted that punishments should have a utilitarian
function and so must be proportional to the gravity of the crime in order to
maximise efficiency in public resource allocation because the greater an
offence is, the greater reason there is to hazard a severe punishment for the
chance of preventing it.”[45]
while in cases under the PCA, there are certain crimes which may not be
right only be classified as cruelty, but often crimes are heinous in nature.
The challenge however lies in the fact that the act makes no classification of
the offences yet the penalty of Rs.50/- is uniformly applied irrespective of
the degree of cruelty inflicted. In this context of proportionality and
deterrence theory, the insufficiency of penalty in section 11 of the Act is
noteworthy and requires serious deliberations on the revision of the same.
B. EASE IN BAIL
Offences under
section 11 are primarily categorised as non-cognisable bailable offences,[46]
with minimal penalty and absence of jail term, obtaining bail becomes all the more simple and easy. The ease
at which bail are obtaining stands to defeat the very purpose of bail
application. If one looks into the historic anecdote into the introduction of
bail, it was evolved as a concept in the Anglo-Saxon law which was originally
looked upon as as a remedy to aid in the avoidance of pre-trial imprisonment.[47]
This rationale of
bail as a remedy was perhaps based in economics. “Because the amount
of the pledge was identical to the amount of the fine upon conviction, the
system accounted for the seriousness of the crime and fulfilled the debt owed
if the accused did not appear for trial.”[48]
The inference one may drawn hence, is that bail was issued as an assurance that
the public resources was not wasted on detain of the accused behind bars. With the development and progress in the
criminal justice system, bail is interpreted more in sync with the deterrence theory. Bail was more of a
reserved privilege based on the gravity of crime committed as against the
heinous ones. [49] Even in India, bail continues to be granted in those
cases strictly judged on the severity. And yet again, the lack of
categorisation of crime in the PC Act, the concept of non-bailable offence does
not arise at all thereby resulting in the negation of the the deterrence factor
and the very purpose of bail.
C. NON-COGNISABILITY OFFENCES
The PCA lists
sixteen offences of which only three are noted as cognisable offences, [50]
under section 11(1)(l), 11(1)(n) and
11(1)(o),[51]
the status of cognisability status is given mostly likely due to the crimes
under these sections as being graver in terms of methodical mutilation, usage of animals for
fighting games or as a
bait, and using the animals in competitive activities usually for pleasure and
gambling. The microscopic listing of these offences creates an umbrella which
shields the aspect of cognisability from being effectively addressed.The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’)
in section (c ) states that cognisable offences are those situations in which
the Police Officer may arrest without warrant based on the First Information Report (‘FIR’) filed under his jurisdiction while
in non-cognisable offences under section
2(l) of the CrPC warrant from the Magistrate has to be obtained by the
concerned police forcer before any arrest is made. Non-cognisable offences are
typically viewed as lesser crimes in
terms of the gravity, magnitude and nature of their crime committed. The
elaborate procedure contained in the law itself makes it a difficult task to
arrest leading in some circumstance failure to secure justice for the victim.
Under the PCA, any complaint or information, the option available is to submit
in the written form to proceed undertake Act. A provision to be noted here is
the presence of Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), which enables the immediate
filing of an FIR as the offence under this provision is termed as cognisable.
Section 428 of the IPC is a general provision, that penalises the mischief of maiming any animal. However on
a careful observation, the legal provision is one that penalises the owner of
the animal as opposed to the animal itself.[52]
The intention of the law, appears to protect the owner of the animal or such
other persons who may have suffered owing to the harm inflicted on the animal
and not really benefit the being. This also means that such animals like only
cattle or companion animals enjoy this protection as they are owned by their
owners while stray animals are not included within the ambit of the provision.
Unfortunately this also implies that a party not privity to the issue may
suffer from the disability of not being able to sue for lack of locus standi
unless one is able to establish a connection to the cause of action. Therefore, what then appears is that section
428 of the IPC though permits registration of an FIR , its falls short of being
aviable option that makes its appearance only when the animal in question has
an owner and can be conveniently deemed a “property”. Although few instances
have been noted under this section [53]
which possibly may be a result of lack of knowledge which does not permit third
parties to do actually lodged a complaint under this specific provision.
Regardless, it is quite obvious that the non cognisability of more offences
under section 11 of the PC Act 11 usher
situations wherein cruelty inflictions on animals have gone unaddressed. there is
a compelling need to address and amend
the present state of affairs with
respect to animal cruelty . Some suggestions
are proposed subsequently.
III. THEORISING SOLUTIONS TO THE
DEFICIENCIES UNDER THE PCA
The defects in the
contemporary liabilities imposed by the PCA can be countered through two
channels, i.e. relevant
amendments to the PCA and an expanded liability approach as adopted in certain
cases by the Supreme Court coupled with a coordinated work force .
A.
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
Relevant
amendments to counter the deficiency in the present PCA calls for an increase
in the penal liability for acts of offences, establishing the status of
cognisable and non-bailable to all offences listed under section 11 measured on
the severity of the offence in every case.
It is suggested
that the amendments in the law are required at dual levels. Firstly, the distinction of offences listed
under section 11 of the PCA, based on the gravity of the crime and the
resultant harm the offence is expected to cause. For instance, under section
11(1)(a), the offence like “beating, kicking, over-riding, over-driving,
over-loading, torturing, causing unnecessary pain or suffering to any animals”[54]
is made punishable, but the vagueness of language falls short of resonating
weight, action of beating an animal
could range from mild beating to beating the animal to death. The leaves of of seriousness
in both the act of beating is not the same but rather in the the two acts, the range of the crime
is obvious which requires to be
reflected in the statute as well as the
penalty for the offender. In the coon parlance, criminal laws in particular
employ ‘different punishments for different offences’ standard to conform to
the doctrine of proportionality. Under the IPC the cognisability for simple
hurt[55] vis-a-vis
grievous hurt[56]
are not the same. The degree of capability is an element that ought to be
considered in such matters. This trend may be followed to enable the effective
implementation of the legislation.
B. LIABILITY
BASED APPROACH
It has been
witnessed in the last few year that the judiciary appears to be following a
trend whereby the doctrine of vicarious liability has been extended on the
State making it pay compensation while
also awarding penalties beyond the prescribed amount. The liability of the
State has been justified on account of its failure to prevent the acts of the
perpetrators, even when the doctrine vicarious liability is not clearly
visible. This is quite a departure from the usual practise of awarding such
compensation to victims of crimes namely, custodial deaths, hit and run, rape
etc.[57]
It is well within the jurisdiction of the courts to impose penalties higher
than what has been codified in the laws, an notable case on this point is Anita
Kushwaha v. Pushpa Sudan,[58]
the Supreme Court passed judgment directing multiple jail terms followed by
life sentence, each to operate consecutively, in case of heinous crimes like
rape-cum-murder cases. The rationale for doing this has been that it was the
duty of the State to protect its citizens, and since it failed to do so, the
State is required to pay a certain amount of compensation. One may argue that
indeed it is the State whose the guardian of the sentient beings.
IV. THE ROAD AHEAD
The Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and
Dairying prepared the draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Amendment)
Bill-2022[59] to
overhaul the six-decade-old law on Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act,
1960. Altogether 61 proposals have been made while the most significant aspect
of the proposed amendments seeks to widen the definition of crime by inserting
a new provision that will include bestiality under the new category of ‘gruesome
cruelty’. Gruesome cruelty is sought to be defined as “an act that leads to
extreme pain and suffering to the animals which may cause lifelong
disability or death”.
The draft set forth the tone for stringent punishments
for gruesome cruelty and killing an animal. The penalty amount may vary from a minimum
fine of Rs 50,000, if circumstances demand the said fine imposed maybe
increased to Rs 75,000. To hike the fine amount, the concerned
judicial magistrate
is required to consult the veterinarians within the local jurisdiction. The term of imprisonment may
also be extended from 1 year to three years depending on the facts and severity
of every case. While a maximum imprisonment of 5years has been proposed for
unjustified and ruthless killing of an animal.
The outstanding feature of the draft amendments is the
proposal for insertion a new provision in section 3A which sets out the five
freedoms to animals. The undertone of this provision will ensure that duty
based approach that will enable the sentient beings enjoy these freedom - (a)
from thirst, hunger and malnutrition, (b) from discomfort due to environment,
(c ) from pain, injury and diseases (d) to express normal behaviour for the
species and nasty (e) from fear and distress. Alongside the introduction
of ownerless “community animals” born within the jurisdiction of a community
are to be in the care of the concerned local community.
It is pertinent to
highlight that the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) was set up in the year
1962 under Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and has
jurisdiction across the country. It is the apex body that frames rules and
grants recognition the Animal Welfare Organizations (AWOs) including Gaushalas
when are made. However it was soon after realised that the AWBI could be more
effective with branches across the country and upon the direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2008, directions were issued for the
constitution of State Animal Welfare Board at State and district levels. To state a few
examples, in 20.4.2011 the Governor of
Mizoram[60]
constituted the State level Animal
welfare Board with member drawn from civil society organisations, concerned
departments, etc. The state government of Goa in 2021 had formulated a scheme
for the purpose providing financial aid to financial assistance to the
Societies for Prevention of Cruel (SPC)[61]
aimed at preventing cruelty towards and protecting animals from being subjected
to unnecessary pain and torture. Following the frequent incidents of killing
stray dogs, in April 2023, the Delhi government[62]
announced the establishment of Animal Welfare Board, along side an order to set
up Delhi’s first veterinary college.
In the attempt to
enforce the PC Act, the Central Government had notified the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property) Animals Rules, 2017
for the maintenance of those animals seized in raids and or in violation of the Act, and Rules. Shelter
homes are to be set up for such rescued animals. An important commitment taken
by the Board is sensitise all the states governments and Union Territories to
implement law and rules on animal welfare and their protection. This requires
the states to undertake projects of modernising and developing the cities in an
environment friendly manner with special provision particularly for the care
and concern of animals. To this end a concerted effort is required to be
discharge by various ministers of the State required specifically the Ministry
of Urban Development, Government of India to play a vital role in
designing Modal Bye-Laws containing provision of Animals Shelters / Animals
Shelters in the Smart City and other Metro City Development Plan to ensure the
successful achievement of the objective of welfare in tune with the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The AWBI has played a significant role in
creating general awareness and Launching
of campaign against sacrifice of animals.[63]
The atrocities against the dogs, feeders of dogs, care givers and dissensions among many urban residents began to be frequently
reported in recent times, in addition to the sporadic incidences of dog bites
in the cities of Delhi, Faridabad, Mumbai, Noida, Pune, Nagpur, Gurgaon etc. The Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rule, 2001was
framed by the Central Government while the duty to implement the rules was on
the local authority which also included underling necessary steps with the main
focus on anti-rabies vaccination of stray dogs and neutering of stray dogs to
the control the
population of stray dogs.[64]
Needless to mention, laws alone cannot be effective. Strong coordination among the various organs of the
state, a well informed society with emotive sensitivity
towards sentient beings will yield results a lot better than simply having good
legislations but confined to the letters of the law.
For our commitment to non-violence will surely and most accurately be judged on
how we treat the sentient being. To conclude in the words of Gandhiji, “The
greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
[2] Neha Madan, “Activists
plan to seek legal remedy”,
The Times Of India, November 6, 2016, available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Activists-plan-to-seek-legal-remedy/articleshow/55269741.cms (Last modified on May 11, 2023).
[3] Avanthi
Meduri, Rukmini Devi Arundale (1904-1986): A Visionary Architect of Indian
Culture and the Performing Arts
(68)(Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, January 2005).
[6] Animal Welfare Board of India, Animal Protection Laws for the guidance of Police, HAWOs,
NGOs and AWOs, available at http://www.awbi.org/awbi-pdf/APL.pdf (Last modified on
May 11, 2023).
[8] Shyam Balasubramanian, “Dog thrown from Chennai rooftop
found alive”, The Times of India,, July 6, 2016 available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/dog-thrown-from-chennai-rooftop-found-alive/articleshow/53068399.cms(last modified on May 11, 2023).
[10] Srinivasa Rao, “Hyderabad: 8 youngsters detained for
burning puppies alive”,
Hindustan Times, July 21,
2016 avaliable at https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/hyderabad-8-teenagers-detained-for-burning-three-puppies-alive/story-2RrfOa8EPZjZhZ79F7QVSN.html#:~:text=Eight
%20boys%20were%20held%20on,were%20believed%20have%20told%20police (Last
modified on May 11, 2023).
[12] Humane Society International, “Parliamentarians, Indian
Celebrities say #NoMore50 to Demand Stronger Penalties for Animal Cruelty”,
May 12, 2016, available at http://www.hsi.org/world/india/news/releases/2016/05/nomore50-campaign-launch-increase-animal-cruelty-penalties-051216.html (Last modified on May 11. 2023).
[13] P. Oppilil, “Poonam
Mahajan moves bill to raise penalties for animal cruelty”, The Times of India August 5, 2016, available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/poonam-mahajan-moves-bill-to-raise-penalties-for-animal-cruelty/articleshow/53560663.cms (last modified on May 11, 2023).
[14] Angel Trust v. Union of India, Civil Petition (SC) of 2016
(Unreported), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzXilfcxe7yuS2xSR24zTmhhT1U/view (Last modified on
May 11, 2023).
[15] M.A. Rashid, “SC
issues Notice on PIL seeking stricter penalty in cases of Animal Cruelty”, LiveLaw, May 12, 2016, available at http://www.livelaw.in/sc-issues-notice-pil-seeking-stricter-penalty-cases-animal-cruelty/ (Last updated on November 7, 2016);
[17] Andrew von Hirsch, “Proportionality in the Philosophy of
Punishment: From “Why Punish?” to “How Much?’’, 1 Criminal Law Forum
259, 262 (1990).
[19] Ajoy P.B., “Administrative Action and Doctrine of Proportionality
in India”, 1(6) Journal of Humanities and Social Science 16 (2012).
[22] Joel Goh, “Proportionality: An Unattainable Ideal in the
Criminal Justice System”, 2(41) Manchester
Law Review 41, 48 (2013).
[24] Michael
Cavadino, James
Dignan, et. al., The Penal System: An Introduction (SAGE Publications Ltd;
6th edition, 2 December 2019).
[25] Richard S Frase, “Excessive
Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: “Proportionality”
Relative to What?”, 89 Minnesota Law Review 571, 592
(2004).
[41]
Abigail Saunders, “The Animals Act 1971 places a disproportionate burden on
the keeper of animals and is in need of reform” , 1 Plymouth Law and
Criminal Justice Review 199 (2016);
[42] Renzo Llorente, “The Moral Framework of Peter Singer’s
Animal Liberation: An alternative to utilitarianism,” 16(1) Ethical Perspective
61 (2009).
[47] Timothy
Schnacke, Michael
R. Jones, et al, The History of
Bail and Pretrial Release, (PJI, Pretrial Justice Institute,
2010).
[48] June Carbone, “Seeing Through the Emperor’s New
Clothes: Rediscovery of Basic Principles in the Administration of Bail”, 34Syracuse
Law Review 517 (1983).
[52] Smt. Amrutha Shankeraiah v State of A.P through Public
Prosecutor, 2010 SCC OnLine AP 365; Keshub Mahindra v State of M.P., (1996) 6
SCC 19.
[59] Available at https://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/filess/Public%20notice-Draft%20PCA%20bill-2022.pdf (last modified on May 11. 2023).
[60] The Mizoram Gazette,
available at https://mizoramassembly.in/storage/gazettes/February2021/YnkUKCt48l1lvtcQMHWH.pdf (Last modified on May 11, 2023).
[61] Non-profit animal welfare bodies to receive
financial aid from govt., September 16, 2021, available at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/non-profit-animal-welfare-bodies-to-receive-financial-aid-from-govt/articleshow/86244413.cms (Last modified on May 11, 2023).
[62]Neha Khan, “Delhi govt forms Animal Welfare Board”,Siasat.com/News/Delhi, April 26, 2023
available at https://www.siasat.com/delhi-govt-forms-animal-welfare-board-2576705/
(Last modified on May 11, 2023).
[63] Mandate of Animal Welfare Board is to prevent cruelty,
suffering and pain to all creatures, Press Information Bureau Government of
India, June 14, 2018 available at https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=179970 (Last modified on May 11, 2023).
[64] Animal Welfare Board of India issues advisories with
regard to stray dogs and pet dogs, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry
& Dairying, December 7, 2022, available at https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1881462&RegID=3&LID=1 (last modified on May 11, 2023).
Article Information
INTROSPECTING THE ADEQUACY OF PENALTY FOR CRUELTY TO ANIMAL- THE LEGAL VOID
Authors: DR. MERCY K KHAUTE
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/08/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.