THE INSUFFICIENT LAWS TO COMBAT ANIMAL CRUETLY

INTRODUCTION

“The offence of animal cruelty is not sufficiently legislated or adjudicated upon by the legislative and judicial body in India”

Since the independence of India, laws time and time again are subjected to amendments to cater to the needs of changing society however there are certain never-amended legislations with the urgent need to resort to stricter reforms.

The term “Animal” is defined as any living creature other than humans. Animals in India are worshipped and at the same time sacrificed and treated as commodities or property occupying a non-human status. The treatment of animals as human property indicates the low status occupied by animals in the eyes of law and the citizens, with no fear of strict liability in instances involving harm and infliction of cruelty upon animals. This is reflected in the legal provisions provided by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (‘the PCA”) which deals with prevention and instances of animal cruelty. However, the PCA only imposes a maximum civil liability of fifty rupees on the perpetrators based on its current application. The apex judicial courts in India have adjudicated on the rights of animals in a manner more inclined towards the protection of “humans” and less of animals.

Recently, several incidents about cruelty being inflicted on animals have come to light such as animals being poisoned, thrown out of the balcony, being killed as a social media stunt questioning whether the provisions of the present Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are sufficient to cure the magnitude of the offence. The Act, which was framed post-independence, envisages a sentencing policy and penalties that were probably adequate during that period, but need to be re-examined now in terms of the adequacy and nature of liability imposed.

The rise in the number of cruelty incidents towards animals, such as throwing a dog from the rooftop, burning animals alive, the female pregnant elephant being fed crackers inside a pineapple, etc., have compelled to question the adequacy of the meager criminal liability imposed for such acts. It questions the present footing of fifty rupees being the highest possible punishment for inflicting cruelty towards animals. But this challenge has been only through various media platforms and not legally.

RIGHT TO LIFE EXTENDED TO ANIMALS?

The High Court of Kerala in N.R. Nair v. Union of India adjudicated on whether fundamental rights can be extended to animal life. The court emphasized the contention that legal rights are not only to “exclusively preserve human beings, but it must also be extended beyond people thereby dismantling the thick barrier with humans at one end and all animals on the other.

This view by the Kerala High Court was further developed by the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, in what has been described as a voluntary judgment, the Supreme Court of India created history by banning a bull-fighting festival celebrated in Tamil Nadu and bullock-cart races in Maharashtra and Punjab. The judgment was opined by Justice Radhakrishnan and Justice Ghose, the judgment held that section 21 of the Indian constitution could include animal rights within its ambit.

LAWS PENALISING ANIMAL CRUELTY

• INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

Section 428 and 429 of the Indian penal code are generic legal provisions penalizing animal cruelty. Section 428 stipulates that Killing, maiming, and poisoning any animal with a monetary value greater than Rs 10 is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or with fine or with both. Under Section 429 of the Code, committing mischief with an animal is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of 5 years and is applicable when the cost of the animal is above 50 Rs.

• PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1962

“PCA is a universally acceptable set of laws in the domain of animal rights”

Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is the main section that prescribes instances of cruelty by listing specific offences. The legal provision penalizes beating, kicking, torturing, over-riding and over-loading or in any manner inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal punishable will be liable to pay a ludicrous fine of up to 100 Rs. In the case of repetitive offense, the offender shall be punished with 3 months imprisonment and an increased fine. The ambit of Section 11 includes instances such as loading cows into trucks without ramps, trying up pigs, and carrying them on cycles. The gravity of the offence compared to the quantum of punishment reflects on the “minor” character provided by the legislation to animal abuse.

The Orissa High Court in Bali Parida v. Nira Parida defined that applicability of section 11 (1) will only apply to instances where the beating of an animal is solely carried out as to subject the animal to unnecessary pain or suffering. Therefore the court established a nexus between the action of cruelty with unnecessary pain or suffering, with the main emphasis on the latter.

The Court, in Compassion Unlimited Plus Action v. Union of India, had held that any action, which causes unnecessary pain and suffering to animals, is an offence, for such action, is in contravention of the statutory rights under §11 and §3 of the PCA that are granted to animals.

The 1890 amendment in PCA enacted the Animal Welfare Board of India, a statutory body that has been given the mandate to oversee and promote the welfare of animals in India having advisory jurisdiction to the Central Government for the same.

The Animal Welfare Board suggested necessary amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act, 1860, and emphasized the increase of punishment. The Supreme Court has also suggested strict reformation to PCA. However, PCA has never been amended in the last 70 years and the incidences of animal abuse keep rising with no hope of justice.

RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION

Stray animals may not be used for research. The Rules for Experimental Animals, enacted by the Committee for the Control and Supervision of Experimental Animals, state that only animals breed for research registered by the Committee may be used for purpose of experimentation.

PCA provides Protection to animals in the sphere of research and experimentation and has appropriate legal provisions for the proper treatment and protection of performing animals.

CONCLUSION

The article endeavored to highlight the “not-so-sufficient” animal welfare legislation in the world’s largest democracy. Due to the inadequacy of the legislation aimed at protecting animal rights and the Parliament’s inefficacy to recognize the rights of animals; change in the law is urgent and necessary.

The animal cruelty cases are in the headlines each day. We suggest the imposition of civil liability on violation of animal rights, and the failure to perform the duty of protection of the rights of animals. It must be understood Animals are not meant for human advantage. Thus, society should stop degrading them and must provide adequate safeguards and rights.

The protection of animal rights as of today is seen more like a social media campaign rather than bringing constructive changes in the real world. Animal rights must be seen as a dual responsibility- collective and individual. Compassion towards animals must be an area of study in schools, children should be taught to be front-runners in animal protection, be responsible pet owners, and view animals as a part of society.

FAQs

• Which is the central legislation dealing with an offence of animal cruelty?

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1962

• Which is the statutory body that deals with cases of animal cruelty?

Animal welfare Board of India (AWBI) is the statutory body established in the year 1962

[This article is written by Megha Solanki, Final Year Student B.A L.LB (Hons) of Fairfield Institute of Management & Technology.]

Syed Ali & Another v state 26 Sep 1972

N.R. Nair v. Union of India, AIR (2000) Ker 340.

Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 11(1)(a)

Bali Parida v.NiraParida, (1969) SCC OnLine Ori 129.

Ibid

Compassion Unlimited Plus Action v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 53.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 4(1).

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Section 9.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Sections 14-20.