Disposed

Narahari Jagadish Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC26 Dec 2016PIL/320/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cockfights during Sankranthi were held to violate animal-cruelty and gaming legislation, without protection from food, religious or customary exceptions. The court directed district SPCAs, joint inspection teams, preventive action, seizures and official accountability, disposing of one PIL and the connected miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed district SPCAs, joint inspection teams, prevention of cockfights, seizure of birds, instruments and betting money, official accountability and compliance reports.

Narahari Jagadish Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014

¶4

AND

¶5

W.P. (PIL) M.P. No.305 of 2016 IN W.P.(PIL) No.177 of 2016

¶6

Narahari Jagadish Kumar.

¶7

…. Appellant

¶8

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶10

…. Respondents

¶11

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 26.12.2016.

¶12

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶13

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶14

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? -

¶15

Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals -Yes -

¶16

Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? -Yes-

¶17

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ

¶18

¶19

* HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶20

*** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA**

¶21

+ W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014 AND W.P. (PIL) M.P. No.305 of 2016 IN W.P.(PIL) No.177 of 2016

¶22

W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014 :

¶23

% Dated 26-11-2016

¶24

Narahari Jagadish Kumar.

¶25

…. Appellant

¶26

¶27

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶28

…. Respondents

¶29

! Counsel for petitioner: Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel for Smt. K. Pallavi, Learned Counsel

¶30

^ Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Home (AP); Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Counsel; Sri K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, Sri Challa Ajay Kumar and Smt. B. Rachana, Learned Counsel.

¶31

<GIST:

¶32

HEAD NOTE:

¶33

? Citations:

¶34

1. JT 2015 (7) SC 1 = (2014) 7 SCC 547

¶35

1. (Judgment in Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.6176 of 2014 dated 06.01.2016)

¶36

1. AIR 1957 SC 521

¶37

1. (2005) 8 SCC 534

¶38

1. (2002) 8 SCC 106

¶39

1. (2008) 17 SCC 55

¶40

1. (Order in W.P. (Civil) No.881 of 2014 dated 13.07.2015) 8) 1928 SCC OnLine US SC 131 = 277 US 438 (1928): 48 S.Ct 564

¶41

¶42

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶43

W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014

¶44

AND W.P. (PIL) M.P. No.305 of 2016 IN W.P.(PIL) No.177 of 2016

¶45

COMMON ORDER : (per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶46

The relief sought for in PIL No.320 of 2014 is to declare the inaction of the respondents, in not taking steps to implement the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960 (the “1960 Act” for short) and the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the “1974 Act”) against anti-social elements organizing cockfights with betting, selling illicit liquor, gambling, and subjecting animals and birds to cruelty during Sankranthi festival from 10.01.2015 to 16.01.2015 in the West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh, as being arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of the 1960 Act and the 1974 Act. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to implement the provisions of the 1960 Act, and the 1974 Act, against anti-social elements organizing cock-fights with betting and other illegal activities.

¶47

W.P. (PIL) No.177 of 2016 is filed by the Animal Rescue Organisation, Kakinada, and another, seeking a mandamus from this Court to declare the action of the respondent-authorities in not taking steps to stop cockfights, and in not forming Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“SPCAs” for short) for each district, as illegal and arbitrary; and, consequently, to direct the respondents to stop and prevent cockfights and betting in Krishna, West Godavari and East Godavari districts, and to form SPCAs as

¶48

¶49

per law in each district, and punish officers and peoples’ representatives who abet such events.

¶50

By order in P.I.L. M.P. Nos.221 and 402 of 2015 and 2 of 2016 in W.P.(PIL) No.320 of 2014 dated 09.06.2016, the Animal Welfare Board of India, Secunderabad, the National Trustee of People for Animals, India and Sri Kanumuru Raghu Ramakrishna Raju were impleaded as respondents 4 to 6. As the Sankranthi festival, from 10.01.2015 to 16.01.2015, had already expired this Court, by its order dated 08.11.2016, suo motu amended the prayer in W.P.(PIL) No.320 of 2014, and deleted the period mentioned therein. Consequently cock-fights with bettings organized during the Sankranthi festival season, irrespective of the year, is under challenge in W.P.(PIL) No.320 of 2014.

¶51

W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014 has been filed, in larger public interest, by a social worker, and the President of the Birds Lovers Association of India, who claims to be fighting against social evils including cock-fighting and betting. It is his case that cock-fights are organized during Sankranthi festival in a majority of villages in East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh; the organizers collect huge amounts from people who participate in cock-fighting; lakhs of rupees are exchanged with the support of political leaders; those from the middle class and the lower middle class, addicted to betting, spend their entire savings thereupon; the organizers of betting tie small knives to the legs of cocks and arrange for them to fight each other; these cocks sustain severe injuries in this cruel game; the organizers have the support of the political hierarchy, and function with the

¶52

¶53

connivance of some of the police officers at the local level; despite his representation to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari district to take immediate preventive action, the latter has not issued any instructions to his subordinates to take preventive measures to eradicate such fowl play; during Sankranthi festival season, several anti-social elements organize and form groups to conduct cock-fights with betting; arenas are constructed in farmhouses; police officers are influenced by greasing their palms with heavy amounts, to avoid action being taken against both the organizers and the participants; every year several MLAs, MPs, MLCs, Cine-actors, and their respective party cadre, participate in these events; crores of rupees change hands during the Sankranthi festival season; this has resulted in those belonging to the middle class losing their hard earned savings; such cock-fights violate Section 11 of the 1960 Act; despite the 1960 Act being in force for more than a half century, police officials have miserably failed to save these animals from such inhuman acts of cruelty; and, unless strong measures are taken to prevent cruelty to these animals, this cruel sport would continue unabated.

¶54

In her counter-affidavit, in W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, states that, due to the changed circumstances, the respondents were taking steps to prevent cock-fight, betting and cruelty to animals and birds in the respective areas; this Court had, by its interim order dated 29.12.2014, recorded the submission of the Learned Government Pleader for Home that the Superintendent of Police of the respective Districts had been instructed to take action with regards organizing cock-fights with betting, sale of illicit liquor,

¶55

¶56

gambling and subjecting animals and birds to cruelty during Sankranthi festival; aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, the 6^th respondent had filed Civil Appeal No.416 of 2016 (arising out of SLP (C) No.1199 of 2015 (C.C. No.245 of 2015)) before the Supreme Court; in its order dated 12.01.2015, the Supreme Court had observed that the Division bench, while disposing of the Writ Petition, had referred to the order said to have been passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh; the Government order was neither on record nor produced before them by the Government Counsel; the High Court was not correct in relying upon a Government order which did not exist; and in that view of the matter the Civil Appeal was being allowed, and the order of the High Court was being set aside. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court to decide the Writ Petition afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made by the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja¹ , after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties, including the Animal Welfare Board of India; and Status quo, as on the date of the order, was directed to be maintained.

¶57

In her counter-affidavit, the Principal Secretary (Home) further stated that there is a practice and custom of cock-fight and betting during Sankranthi festival prevailing in some areas; the Director-General of Police had, vide proceedings dated 02.01.2016, directed all District Superintendents of Police to take stringent legal action if any incident was reported, in their jurisdiction, regarding cock-fight, betting, gambling and subjecting animals and birds to cruelty during Sankranthi festival; in compliance with the 1 JT 2015 (7) SC 1 = (2014) 7 SCC 547

¶58

¶59

said directions, the Superintendents of Police were taking effective steps to prevent organized cock-fight, betting, gambling, and subjecting animals and birds to cruelty during Sankranthi festival; the respondents were taking effective steps to implement the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the A.P. Gaming Act, 1974; and the respondent officials would obey the orders, if any, passed by this Court.

¶60

In the affidavit, filed in support of W.P. (PIL) No.177 of 2016, it is stated that roosters are tied with knives, and the traumatized cocks are thrown into the air against each other, amidst roaring crowds, to fight and inflict injuries on each other; hundreds of crores, in cash and property, change hands in the name of betting; after the fight is over, punters exchange cash bundles; the dead roosters are dumped in a jute bag; the local police register a case to show that the law is implemented; these half dead/alive roosters, dumped in these bags, are taken to the Court and produced the next day; the Judicial Officer imposes a fine of Rs.50/-, and orders auction of these dead/half dead roosters; and the cruelty continues. According to the petitioners, failure to stop this inhuman event would result in these roosters being continued to be subjected to cruelty and torture, besides several families being deprived of their hard earned savings because of betting and gambling. Along with W.P.(PIL) No.177 of 2016 are enclosed certain photographs which show peoples representatives (MLAs and MPs) inaugurating these events in several districts. The enclosed newspaper articles show that traders have now taken to online selling of such roosters. Several letters, addressed by the

¶61

¶62

petitioners to various functionaries, appear to have been largely ignored.

¶63

Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014, would submit that cocks/rooters are also defined as animals under the 1960 Act; cock fight is a cruel sport where cocks/roosters are forced to fight each other, sometimes to death; knives, blades and iron claws are attached to the rooster’s legs to make the fight bloody and gruesome; while this event goes on throughout the year, it is mainly held during Sankranthi festival; these cock-fights inflict on cocks/roosters unnecessary pain and suffering; such events are in violation of Sections 3 and 11(1) m (ii) and (n) of the 1960 Act; it is neither saved by Sections 11(3)(e) nor by Section 28 of the 1960 Act; as these events have political patronage, District Collectors and District Superintendent of Police usually turn a blind eye to these events; a symbolic arrest, or seizure of a few cocks, takes place to avoid public criticism; and the very object and purpose for which the 1960 Act was made is defeated thereby. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, since the punishment prescribed for organising such events is insignificant, the fundamental right on these cocks under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and their statutory rights under the 1960 and 1974 Acts, are brazenly violated by those who conduct such events under the protection extended to them by certain public representatives, bureaucrats and police officers. Learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on A. Nagaraja¹ .

¶64

¶65

Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Animal Welfare Board of India, would submit that cock-fights take place, on a large scale, in West Godvari, East Godavari, Krishna and Guntur Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh; the Animal Welfare Board has around 30 welfare officers in the State; and, as these officers are not extended the necessary support by bureaucrats and police officers, they are unable to effectively discharge their statutory functions under the 1960 Act, and the Rules made thereunder.

¶66

Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No.177 of 2016, would highlight the necessity of establishing SPCAs in all the Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh. He would submit that betting, in crores of rupees, takes place during these events; not only has this resulted in depriving lakhs of people of their entire wealth, it is also slowly, but surely, destroying the social fabric of rural Andhra Pradesh, more particularly in the Districts of Krishna, Guntur, East Godavari and West Godavari; and there is an urgent need for the intervention of this Court to ensure that such bloody and gruesome events are prevented from being held.

¶67

I. COCKFIGHT IS A BLOODY AND GRUESOME SPORT WHICH CAUSES UNNECESSARY PAIN AND SUFFERING ON ROOSTERS :

¶68

As the petitioners claim that the cockfight events, conducted in several villages of Krishna, East Godavari and West Godavari Districts during the Sankranthi festival season each year, result in infliction of cruelty to cocks/roosters, making them undergo torture, pain and suffering, and thereby violating Sections 3 and

¶69

¶70

11 of the 1960 Act, it is necessary to note, albeit in brief, what a cockfight is. In his representation dated 03.12.2014, submitted to the respondent – officials (a copy of which is enclosed along with W.P.(PIL) No.320 of 2014), the petitioner has graphically detailed the manner in which these cock-fights take place. He states that the organizers tie small knives to the legs of cocks, and arrange for them to fight each other; the cocks sustain bleeding injuries; the cock, which receives more injuries, dies during the event; and the cocks bleed profusely while fighting each other.

¶71

In her affidavit, Ms. Gauri Maulekhi, National Trustee, People for Animals, India (5^th respondent in W.P.(PIL).No.320 of 2014) submits that cockfight events are organized where two roosters are incited to fight each other; these roosters are specially bred, and are trained to fight; they are given steroids to make them more aggressive, and to make them fight; usually blades or an iron hook is attached to the feet of the roosters to ensure increased damage being inflicted on the other bird; the fight may last from a few minutes to half an hour; no matter how exhausted the rooster is, it has to continue; it cannot exit the restricted fight space; the fight ends only with the death of one or both of the birds; and, even where the death of one of the birds is not caused, the injuries are so serious and grievous including, but not limited to, punctured lungs, pierced eyes and broken bones.

¶72

Several photographs, have been placed for our perusal, of the cockfight events held in different parts of West Godavari district during the 2015 Sankranthi festival. These photographs show roosters, which have sustained injuries during the cockfight,

¶73

¶74

not being allowed to escape; their owner thwarting their attempts to run away, and throwing them back into the pit; game cocks in flight attacking each other; a game cock which is being forced back to fight its opponent cock in order to finish the game, which is declared as having ended only when one of the cock dies; cocks tied with a knife to their legs to cause injury to its opponent; different kinds of sharp blades attached to the rooster’s legs to cause injury to its opponent during the cockfight; birds with deep gashes, caused by the knife attached to the opponent-rooster’s claws; a bird fatally stabbed with the sharp point of a kathi (knife), and left to bleed to death; and the post-dusk cockfight events held under the glare of lights.

¶75

Among the documents placed before us, by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 6^th respondent, is an article which defines “cockfight” as a blood sport held between two roosters (cocks), or more accurately called gamecocks, held in a ring called a cockpit. According to the said article, the history of raising fowl for fighting goes back 6,000 years; the combatants, referred to as gamecocks, are specially bred birds, conditioned for increased stamina and strength; cocks possess congenital aggression towards all males of the same species; cocks are given the best care until near the age of two years; cocks are conditioned, much like professional athletes, prior to the events or shows; wagers are often made on the outcome of the match; cockfighting is a blood sport due, in some part, to the physical trauma the cocks inflict on each other, which is sometimes increased for entertainment purposes by attaching metal spurs to the cocks natural spurs; while not all fights are to

¶76

¶77

the death, the cocks may endure significant physical trauma; in some areas, around the world, cockfighting is still practiced as a mainstream event; in some countries it is regulated by law, or forbidden outright; and advocates of the age old sport often list cultural and religious relevance as reasons for perpetuation of cockfighting as a sport.

¶78

The process of cockfight is described in the said Article as follows:- Two owners place their gamecock in the cockpit; the cocks fight until, ultimately, one of them dies or is critically injured; historically, this was in a cockpit, a term which was also used in the 16^th century to mean a place of entertainment or frenzied activity; cockfight in Tamil Nadu is called Vetrukkaal seval porr (“naked heel cockfight); in Andhra Pradesh cockfight is called Kodi Pandem, and is a favourite sport of people living in the coastal region of the State; three-to-four inch blades are attached to the cocks’ legs; knockout fights to the death are widely practiced in Andhra Pradesh; the sport has gradually become a gambling sport; cockfight is an intense sport, recreation or pastime to some, while to others, it remains an ancient religious ritual, a sacred ceremony associated with the ‘daivasthanams’ (temples) and held at the temple precincts.

¶79

II. COCKFIGHTS VIOLATE SECTINS 3 AND 11 OF THE 1960 ACT, AND ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION :

¶80

As the petitioners contend that “cockfight” is an act of cruelty to animals, and violates Sections 3 to 11 of the 1960 Act, it is necessary to briefly note the scope and ambit of the 1960 Act. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is an Act made for

¶81

¶82

the prevention of infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and, for that purpose, to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, a welfare legislation, should be construed bearing in mind the purpose and object of the Act, and the directive principles of State policy. The statutory provisions, in welfare legislations, should be liberally construed in favour of the weak and the infirm, and the benefits conferred thereunder should not be permitted to be defeated by subtle devices. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). Animal welfare laws should be interpreted keeping in mind the welfare of animals, and the species best interests, subject to just exceptions arising out of human necessity. Such exceptions are unavoidable activities, and not those which can be avoided. ( Mahaveer Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan² ). The Court has a duty to take care of the rights of animals, since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶83

Section 2(a) of the 1960 Act defines “animal” to mean any living creature other than a human being. Section 2(f) defines “owner”, with reference to an animal, to include not only the owner but also any other person for the time being in possession or custody of the animal, whether with or without the consent of the owner. Section 3 prescribes the duties of persons having charge of animals and, thereunder, it shall be the duty of every person, having the care or charge of any animal, to take all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent the infliction, upon such animal, of unnecessary pain or suffering.

¶84

2 (Judgment in Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.6176 of 2014 dated 06.01.2016)

¶85

¶86

Section 3 is a preventive provision conferring no right on the organisers, but only duties and obligations on them.

¶87

Section 3 confers a corresponding right on the animals as against persons in charge or care, as well as the Animal Welfare Board of India (“AWBI” for short), to ensure their well-being, and not to be inflicted with unnecessary pain or suffering. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). Section 3 of the 1960 Act has two limbs. The first limb casts a duty on persons, having the care or charge of any animal, to take all reasonable measures to ensure its well-being. It gives a corresponding right to the animal to have its well-being ensured. The second limb casts a duty on such persons to take reasonable measures to prevent infliction, upon such animal, of unnecessary pain and suffering. Both these limbs should be cumulatively satisfied. “Well-being” means a state of being which is comfortable, healthy or happy. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶88

Cockfight events are not organized for the well-being of cocks/roosters and, by such activities, the organizers would be violating the first limb of Section 3 of the 1960 Act. (A. Nagaraja¹ ). Forcing the rooster into an enclosure, subjecting it to torture, fear, pain and suffering, forcing it into a fight unto death, making them cut each other with sharp knives and blades attached to their legs, and thereby causing each other grievous injury and tremendous loss of blood, are not for their well-being. The ordeal which these birds suffer in the cockpit, and this gory event of blood letting cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be for their wellbeing. The rights guaranteed to these cocks/roosters, under Section 3 of the 1960 Act, are denied with impunity by those who

¶89

¶90

rear, and prepare them for participation in this savage event, where spectators derive pleasure in watching them injure, bleed and kill each other. Sadism and perversity is writ large in the actions of the organisers of these cockfights. The event is meant not for the well-being of these cocks/roosters, but for the perverse pleasure of human beings, particularly the organisers and spectators, who enjoy watching these birds savagely attack and maim each other, forgetting the intrinsic worth of these animals.

¶91

( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶92

Pain and suffering are biological traits. Pain informs an animal which specific stimuli it needs to avoid. An animal has pain receptors and a memory that allows it to remember what has caused the pain. D.M. Broom, Professor of Animal Welfare, University of Cambridge in his article, appearing in Chapter fourteen of the book “ Animal Welfare and the Law” , (Cambridge University Press (1989)), says:

¶93

“Behavioural responses to pain vary greatly from one species to another, but it is reasonable to suppose that the pain felt by all of these animals is similar to that felt by man.”

¶94

Suffering has the same function. An animal can be regarded as suffering if it is in pain, distress, or acute or unduly prolonged discomfort. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶95

Considerations which are relevant, in determining whether the suffering which the animal is put through is unnecessary under the second limb of Section 3, include whether the suffering could have reasonably been avoided or reduced, and whether the

¶96

¶97

conduct, which caused the suffering, was in compliance with the relevant enactments. Another aspect to be examined is whether the conduct, causing the suffering, was for a legitimate purpose, such as to benefit the animals or to protect the person, property or another animal, etc. The duty cast is to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, meaning thereby, that no right is conferred on any person to inflict unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶98

Cockfights cause considerable pain, stress and strain on the roosters. As severe pain is inflicted on them in the cockpit, they attempt to flee from a situation adverse to them. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). By organising cockfights, the organisers are not preventing the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, but are ensuring that pain and suffering is inflicted on the roosters, which they are legally obliged to prevent. From the point of view of the rooster, cockfight is not an event which ensures their well-being, or an event meant to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on them. On the contrary, it is an event against their well-being and causes them unnecessary pain and suffering. Both the limbs of Section 3 of the 1960 Act are violated while conducting a cockfight event. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶99

Chapter III of the 1960 Act relates to cruelty to animals generally and Section 11, thereunder, relates to treating animals cruelly. Section 11, which generally deals with cruelty to animals, is a beneficial provision enacted for the welfare and protection of the animals, and is penal in nature. Being penal in nature, it confers rights on the animals and obligates all persons, including

¶100

¶101

those who are in charge or care of the animals, AWBI, etc to look after their well-being and welfare. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶102

Section 11(1)(a) stipulates that, if any person beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner, permits any animal to be so treated, he shall be punishable. Section 11(1)( a ) uses the expressions “ or otherwise ”, “ unnecessary pain or suffering ”, etc. The expression “ or otherwise ” is intended to cover other cases which may not come within the meaning of the preceding part of Section 11(1)( a ). ( A. Nagaraja¹ ; Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay³ ). The expression “ or otherwise ” is not used as words of limitation, and the legislature intended to cover all situations, where the animals are subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering. As torture, pain and suffering goes with the cockfight event, such events fall within that expression under Section 11(1)( a ) of the 1960 Act. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶103

Section 11(1) clauses ( b ) to ( o ) of the 1960 Act prescribe various duties and obligations, generally and specifically, on persons in charge of or care of animals which, in turn, confer corresponding rights on animals which, if violated, are punishable under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the 1960 Act. Under Section 11(1)(m)(ii), inciting any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or (n) organizing, keeping, using or acting in the management of any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal, or permitting or offering any place to be so used, or receive money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or

¶104

3 AIR 1957 SC 521

¶105

¶106

used for any such purposes, shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence, committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with both. Section 11(2) stipulates that, for the purpose of subsection (1), an owner shall be deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to the prevention of such offence. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶107

Article 21 of the Constitution has given the word “life” an expanded definition. In so far as animals are concerned, “life” means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human beings, but a life of some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. The right to dignity and fair treatment is not confined to human beings alone, but to animals as well. Animals also have a right not to be tortured by human beings, and from being inflicted with unnecessary pain or suffering. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). Every species has an inherent right to live, and to be protected by law, subject to the exception provided out of necessity. Animals have honour and dignity which cannot be arbitrarily deprived, and its rights must be respected and protected from unlawful attacks. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). Any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life which are necessary for human life, fall within the ambit of Article 21. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶108

¶109

The Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) is a campaign led by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) in an attempt to secure international recognition for the principles of animal welfare. UDAW has had considerable support from various countries, including India. WSPA believes that the world should look to the success of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to set out what UDAW can achieve for animals. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). World Health Organisation of Animal Health (OIE), of which India is a member, acts as the international reference organisation for animal health and animal welfare. OIE has been recognised as a reference organisation by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and, in the year 2013, it had a total of 178 member countries. On animal welfare, OIE says that an animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from an unpleasant state such as pain, fear and distress. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶110

Chapter 7.1.2 of the Guidelines of OIE recognises five internationally recognised freedoms for animals, such as: ( i ) freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; ( ii ) freedom from fear and distress; ( iii ) freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; ( iv ) freedom from pain, injury and disease; and ( v ) freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour. Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), in its “Legislative and Regulatory Options for Animal Welfare”, has indicated that these five freedoms find place in Farm Welfare Council 2009 UK, and is also called “Brambell’s Five Freedoms”. These five freedoms, considered to be

¶111

¶112

the fundamental principles of animal welfare, find place in Sections 3 and 11 of the 1960 Act; and they confer on animals similar rights as are guaranteed to the citizens of this country under Part III of the Constitution of India. These five freedoms should not only be read into Sections 3 and 11 of the 1960 Act, it should also be protected and safeguarded by the State Government and the AWBI. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶113

As Sections 3 and 11 of the Act confer rights on animals not to be subjected to cruelty, Courts can always judge whether they are being exploited by human beings. Through the 1960 Act, Parliament has given statutory recognition to the rights of animals, without sacrificing the interest of human beings applying the doctrine of necessity, like experiments on animals for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶114

Animals also have intrinsic worth and value. Section 3 of the 1960 Act has acknowledged those rights and, along with Section 11, casts a duty on persons, having a charge or care of animals, to take reasonable measures to ensure their well-being, and to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on them. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). Sections 3 and 11 confer no right on the organisers of cockfights, but only prescribe duties, responsibilities and obligations, and confer a corresponding right on animals. The right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere, the right to get food and shelter, and the right to protection from human beings

¶115

¶116

against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering on them is a right guaranteed to animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the 1960 Act. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶117

III. DO “COCKFIGHTS” GLORIFY VIOLENCE?

¶118

In her affidavit Ms.Gauri Maulekhi, National Trustee, People for Animals, India submits that Article 51A(g) casts an obligation on all citizens to treat animals with compassion; such concerns must pervade law and policy that deals with them; animals must be seen as living creatures whose life has value; cockfights glorify violence against animals and communicate to the general public, including the younger generation, that cruelty to animals is entertainment; the entire purpose of the 1960 Act is to prevent cruelty to animals from taking place; and the State Government should pro-actively enforce the 1960 Act.

¶119

Article 51-A( g ) of the Constitution states that it shall be the duty of citizens to have compassion for living creatures. By enacting Article 51-A( g ), and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48-A are honoured as a fundamental duty by every citizen. Article 51-A( g ) enjoins a fundamental duty on every citizen “to have compassion for living creatures” which means concern for the suffering, sympathy etc., which should be read along with Sections 3, 11(1)( a ) and ( m ) of the 1960 Act. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ; State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat⁴ ).

¶120

4 (2005) 8 SCC 534

¶121

¶122

Article 51-A( h ) says that it shall be the duty of every citizen to develop a scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Particular emphasis has been placed on the expression “humanism” which has a number of meanings, but increasingly designates an inclusive sensibility for our species. Humanism also means to understand, benevolence, compassion, mercy, etc. Citizens should, therefore, develop a spirit of compassion and humanism which is reflected in the Preamble of the 1960 Act as well as in Sections 3 and 11 thereof. The requirement of looking after the welfare and well-being of animals, and the duty to prevent infliction of pain or suffering on them, highlights the principles of humanism in Article 51-A( h ). The fundamental duties under Articles 51-A( g ) and ( h ) should be read into the 1960 Act, especially into Sections 3 and 11 thereof, and should be applied and enforced. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶123

Sections 3, 11(1)( a ) and other related provisions of the 1960 Act should be understood and read along with Article 51-A( g ) of the Constitution whereunder every citizen has a fundamental duty to have “compassion for living creatures”. Parliament, by incorporating Article 51-A( g ), has reiterated and re-emphasised the fundamental duties of human beings towards every living creature, which evidently takes in roosters. All living creatures have an inherent dignity, a right to live peacefully, and a right to protect their well-being which encompasses protection from torture, pain, suffering etc. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). The rights guaranteed to roosters and cocks under Sections 3 and 11 of the 1960 Act read with Articles 51-A( g ) and ( h ) of the Constitution, cannot be taken away

¶124

¶125

or curtailed, except under Sections 11(3) and 28 of the 1960 Act. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). “Cockfights” glorify violence, and impressionable minds may well equate violence and bloodshed, which forms an integral part of such events, to entertainment. Such a bloody sport makes spectators immune to the pain and suffering of these animals and promotes an indifference, among the spectators and the participants, to the well being of animals. Such event encourage people not to discharge their fundamental duty, under Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution, to have compassion for living creatures.

¶126

IV. DOES A “COCKFIGHT” EVENT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 11(3)(e) OF THE 1960 ACT?

¶127

Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 6^th respondent, would submit that chicks are among the oldest domestic animals which provide two sources of food, i.e meat and eggs, frequently consumed by human beings; there are more chicks in the World than any other species of birds; accepting the contention, urged on behalf of the petitioners, would require chicks to be prohibited from being used as an article of food under the 1960 Act; as chicken is an article of food for human consumption, none of these Acts can be applied as, otherwise, chicken should be banned as a food article also; the poultry industry is supported by the Government; if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, poultry business should be banned, as it would amount to cruelty and fall within the purview of the 1960 Act.

¶128

The material placed on record by the 6^th respondent shows that, as against the population of our country of around 125

¶129

¶130

crores, 115 crore Indians consume chicken as a regular component of food; innumerable eggs and numerous chicks, including hens, form part of a regular human menu. Every day crores of chicks are used as food for human consumption. Consumption of chicken in India is growing at around 12% per annum, as the cost of pulses has increased drastically. Infrastructure is being created at the gross-root level, for the growth and development of the poultry industry, through financing by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), Nationalized Banks and the National Co-operative Development Cooperation (NCDC).

¶131

A table, regarding chicken consumption in the world, is placed for our perusal. The table shows that 1,053.9 million chicks were consumed in India as food in the year 2000, and this increased to 1,224.6 millions in the year 2010, and to 1,308.2 millions in the year 2015. Poultry meat consumed in India was 2 kgs per person per year in the year 2007, which increased to around 3 kgs in the year 2012, as compared to several other countries whose per capita consumption of chicken is more than 15 kgs per annum. Chicken consumption is growing at around 12% per year in India because of the presumption that it is healthy. 100 grams of chicken gives more protein than 100 grams of cooked lentils. The sharp spurt in the price of pulses is the cause for an increase in the demand for poultry products. Many middle class Indians are switching to cheaper sources of protein, including chicken and eggs, which are affordable compared to dals. Many consumers prefer poultry meat over other animal protein due

¶132

¶133

to its relatively lower price. Consumption of poultry meat in India is a meagre 3.1 kgs as against a world average of 17 kgs. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, which are the second largest producers of eggs after Tamil Nadu, are encouraging poultry production by farmers, to decrease their dependence on agriculture.

¶134

G.O.Ms. No.27 dated 23.06.2016, was issued launching the Primary Sector Mission, and identifying livestock sector as one of the growth engines for socio-economic development of the new State of Andhra Pradesh. Under the said G.O, a poultry development policy, for the years 2016-2020, was formulated. The said G.O. provides for establishment of chicken processing units; 35% subsidy being given to entrepreneurs on the infrastructure required for setting up of cold chain facilities exclusively for broiler poultry meat; tax incentives being extended to such units; and interest subsidy being provided to support the units covered under the poultry venture capital fund, and the rural backyard poultry. The G.O. records that the financial implications for the initiatives, through the Animal Husbandry Department, would be Rs.323.55 crores; and the total financial incentives would be in excess of Rs.575.46 crores. The G.O. also provides for market development and strengthening of institutions, and stipulates that the policy would come into operation from 23.06.2016, and remain in force for four years or upto 31.03.2020. A major object of the policy is to enhance poultry production of commercial broilers, and encourage processing of eggs. The State Government is aggressively promoting poultry business, and is lending its support to increased consumption of poultry chicken.

¶135

¶136

According to an article titled “ The Poultry Industry in India” , a copy of which has been placed on record by the 6^th respondent, India’s poultry industry represents a major success story, with poultry production rising at 8% per annum with an annual turnover of 7,500 million U.S. dollars. The data, as analysed therein, shows a sharp jump in India’s egg and poultry meat production. Poultry meat has outpaced its two major competitors – beef and veal, and buffalo meat. There has been a moderate shift in the consumption pattern from vegetarianism to nonvegetarianism. It is estimated that there would be a two to three fold increase in poultry production over the next ten or fifteen years. The said Article also refers to the efforts made by a southern based consortium of broiler producers and marketers to promote consumption of poultry meat, and to stabilize wholesale prices of poultry meat. The Article concludes that poultry is one of the fastest-growing segments of the agricultural sector in India, with an average growth rate of 8 to 10 per cent per annum; production levels have reached 45 billion eggs and 1.7 million tonnes of poultry meat per annum; India is now the world’s third largest egg producer, and the nineteenth largest producer of broilers; poultry production contributes around 1 per cent to India’s GDP; the per capita annual availability of poultry products has increased to 44 eggs and 1.75 kg of meat – still below the recommended levels of 180 eggs and 11 kg of meat; poultry exports from India has been on the rise; and such exports are mainly confined to table eggs and egg powder.

¶137

¶138

Consumption of chicken and egg is distinct from and has no connection with cockfights. Cockfights are conducted not to kill these cocks/roosters for their consumption as food, but for the entertainment of those who come to watch such events. While causing death to chicks, for their consumption as food, is exempt from the applicability of the 1960 Act, cockfight as an event, whereby cocks/roosters are made to fight each other causing severe loss of blood, deep gashes and wounds, is prohibited under Section 11(1), and is against their wellbeing under Section 3 of the 1960 Act. Section 11(3)(e) of the 1960 Act stipulates that nothing in Section 11 shall apply to the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction, or the preparation for destruction, of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation is accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. Exceptions are incorporated in Section 11 based on the “doctrine of necessity”. Clause ( e ) of Section 11(3) permits killing of animals as food for mankind without inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering, which clause is also incorporated “out of necessity”. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). Both AWBI and the State Governments are required to ensure that, even in cases where Section 11(3)(e) is involved, the animals are not be put to unnecessary pain and suffering. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶139

Even for slaughtering of animals, for its consumption by human beings, Rules have been made. Section 38(1) of the 1960 Act enables the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to the condition of previous publication, to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. In the exercise of

¶140

¶141

the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 38 of the 1960 Act, the Central Government made the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 (for short the “Slaughter-house Rules”). Rule 2(b) defines “slaughter” to mean the killing or destruction of any animal for the purpose of food, and to include all processes and operations performed on all such animals in order to prepare it for being slaughtered. Rule 2(c) defines “slaughter house” to mean a slaughter house wherein 10, or more than 10 animals, are slaughtered per day and is duly licensed or recognized under a Central, State or Provincial Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder. Rule 3(1) stipulates that no person shall slaughter any animal within a municipal area except in a slaughter house recognized or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force to do so. Rule 6 relates to slaughter and, under sub-rule (1) thereof, no animal shall be slaughtered in a slaughter house in sight of other animals. Rule 6(2) stipulates that no animal shall be administered any chemical, drug or hormone before slaughter, except drugs for its treatment from any specific disease or ailment. Rule 6(3) stipulates that the slaughter halls, in a slaughter house, shall provide separate sections of adequate dimensions sufficient for the slaughter of individual animals to ensure that the animal, to be slaughtered, is not within the sight of other animals. Rule 6(4) stipulates that every slaughter house, as soon as possible, shall provide a separate space for stunning of animals prior to slaughter, bleeding and dressing of the carcasses.

¶142

The Rule making authority has made rules to prevent cocks/roosters from suffering the pain of seeing other

¶143

¶144

cocks/roosters being slaughtered; and for their being stunned prior to their slaughter, and thereby alleviate their suffering. Cockfights, where roosters are forced to cut each other with knifes, resulting in severe loss of blood and grievous injury, causes them unnecessary pain and suffering, and violates the conditions prescribed in Section 11(3)(e) of the 1960 Act of the need to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. While killing cocks and roosters, for its consumption as food, is exempted from the rigour of the 1960 Act, in view of Section 11(3)(e) thereof, a “cockfight” event is held not for the purpose of consumption of chicken as food but as a spectator sport – a bloody and gory spectacle where the animal is put through wholly unnecessary pain and suffering. Cock-fight as an event cannot be justified as an act in the course of destruction, or preparation of destruction, of any animal as food for mankind. Even assuming that these roosters/cocks are consumed as food after the event, Section 11(3)(e) requires the destruction of these animals not to be accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. The gory and bloody fight between two cocks cannot be said to be an act of destruction of the animal without infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering.

¶145

V. DOES “COCKFIGHTING” HAVE RELIGIOUS SANCTION?

¶146

Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 6^th respondent, would submit that slaughtering of animals is permitted in various forms of religious ceremonies; Shechita jewish method of ritual slaughter and Dhabihah Muslim method of ritual slaughter are but a few instances; the Aryan Hindu tradition prescribes only such meat, as is obtained from an

¶147

¶148

animal which is killed with one stroke of the weapon causing instantaneous death, to be fit for human consumption; with the advent of Islam in India, it became a State policy not to permit slaughter of animals for food, in any other manner, except as laid down in the Quran; Kosher meat, prepared by slowly severing the main blood artery of the throat of the animal while reciting verses from the Quran, is done to make slaughter a sacrifice to God, and to expiate the sins of the slaughter; and, if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, all such killings should be banned.

¶149

Section 28 of the 1960 Act relates to saving as respects the manner of killing prescribed by religion and, thereunder, nothing contained in the 1960 Act shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community. Parliament, through Section 28 of the 1960 Act, has also saved the killing of animals in the manner prescribed by religion. These are reasonable restrictions on the rights enjoyed by the animals under Section 3 read with Section 11(1) of the 1960 Act, and are the direct inevitable consequences or the effects which can be said to have been in the contemplation of Parliament for the benefit of human beings, since they are unavoidable. Entertainment, exhibition or amusement do not fall under these exempted categories. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ).

¶150

In its order in Review Petition (Civil) No.3769 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No.5387 of 2014 dated 16.11.2016, the Supreme Court noted the directions issued earlier in A. Nagaraja¹ . It referred in detail to the statement of objects and reasons of the 1960 Act, to its preamble, and to Sections 3, 11, 21 and 22 of the 1960 Act. It

¶151

¶152

also referred with approval to A. Nagaraja¹ wherein a passage was

¶153

quoted from the Isha-Upanishad which reads thus:-

¶154

“The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land. No creature is superior to any other. Human beings should not be above nature. Let no one species encroach over the rights and privileges of other species”.

¶155

The Supreme Court further held that, while dealing with the law and legal principles, reference can be made to the cultural ethos and the ancient texts of this country in so far as they do not run counter to constitutional and statutory thought and principles; the right conferred, under Article 25 of the Constitution, pertains to freedom of conscience and the right to practice and profess any religion; there is no connection or association of “Jallikattu” with the right of freedom of religion under Article 25; while the contention that every festival had its roots in religion and, as “Jallikattu” is an event that takes place after harvest, it has religious flavor though attractive, such an interpretation was extremely stretched; and it was totally alien to the fundamental facet of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

¶156

Cock fighting, which is considered a spectator sport associated with the Sankranthi festival, does not appear to have any religious sanction. Several religions prescribe a particular method for slaughter of animals, either as a part of religious ceremonies, or for its consumption as food; and certain religions also prescribe slaughter of animals as a sacrifice to the Gods. Section 28 of the 1960 Act merely provides for the manner of killing of animals prescribed by any religion or community. No religious text, which requires cocks to fight each other unto death as a part of a ritual or as a method of slaughter prescribed by

¶157

¶158

religion, has been brought to our notice for us to hold that such acts are saved by Section 28 of the Act. It is the manner in which an animal is killed which is required to be sanctioned by religion to be saved under Section 28 of the Act, and not the killing of the animal itself. Cockfight events are in violation of Sections 3 and 11 of the 1960 Act, and are not saved by Section 28 thereof.

¶159

VI. IS “COCKFIGHT” A PART OF TRADITION AND CUSTOM?

¶160

While the stand of the State Government, on the question whether cockfighting is an act of cruelty to animals (roosters/cocks), is ambivalent, it is the 6^th respondent who has contended that cockfighting is not in violation of the provisions of the 1960 Act. He seeks to justify the cockfight events held during Sankranthi festival each year contending that cockfight is a popular, traditional and customary form of recreation and entertainment; cockfighting is an ancient spectator sport which dates back to more than 6000 years; it is a practice being followed for the last several hundreds of years; several countries, around the world, permit the said sport as a customary tradition; in countries like Philippines, cockfighting is recognized as a traditional and customary form of recreation and entertainment; a law was made in 1974 for the purpose of cockfighting; cockfighting is an ancient spectator sport; there is evidence that cockfighting was a pastime in the Indus Valley Civilization; the Encyclopedia Britannica (2008) describes this sport as being popular in ancient times in India, China, Persia, and other eastern countries; and cockfighting cannot be considered as cruelty towards animals.

¶161

¶162

“Tradition” is not a justification for cruelty towards animals. A cruel tradition should never be allowed to define a culture. “Traditions, can – and must- evolve”. Traditions, such as cockfights, have no religious sanction or significance as it is a pursuit for economic gain to reap maximum monetary benefits through animal exploitation inflicting unnecessary pain on them. It is nothing but an evil practice. ( Mahaveer Bishnoi² ).

¶163

The 1960 Act, a welfare legislation, overshadows and overrides tradition and culture. Even if cockfights have been in vogue for some time, it should give way to the welfare legislation enacted to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. Animals are being exploited by human beings, inflicting unnecessary pain on them for their pleasure, amusement and enjoyment. Even if certain evil practices in society have the support of culture and tradition, it should yield to the Law, in the present case the 1960 Act. Custom or usage cannot be considered a source of law to claim certain rights, when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, and the specific mandate of the Constitution and the laws. No usage, which is found to be pernicious and in derogation of the law of the land or opposed to public policy or social decency, can be accepted or upheld by Courts. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ; N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board⁵ ). Traditions and customs do not afford any justification for causing pain and suffering on these animals as such acts are in violation of Sections 3 and 11 of the 1960 Act.

¶164

5 (2002) 8 SCC 106

¶165

¶166

VII. WOULD PROHIBITING “COCKFIGHTS” RESULT IN DISCRIMINATION?

¶167

Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 6^th respondent, would submit that, during Sankranthi, bullock-cart racing is conducted and organized by the Government in SPSR Nellore District; similarly bull race competition is conducted at Bonuthala Village, Nalgonda District during Sankranthi; as a part of the competition, bulls are required to pull a 2,200 kg rock to as much a distance as possible within a prescribed time limit; Ongole bulls, reared from across Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, take part in this competition; based on the distance covered, the organizers give prizes to the owner of the bull; all these events take place during Sankranthi festival; and, as cockfighting is not a commercial activity, it cannot be considered as an act of cruelty towards animals.

¶168

The question, which necessitates examination in these Writ proceedings, is confined to whether cockfighting, as an event, is an act of cruelty on animals, and whether such events are in violation of the provisions of the 1960 Act. The question whether bullock cart racing, and bull race competition, also contravene the provisions of the 1960 Act has not been put in issue in these Writ Petitions. The possibility of such events, also falling foul of the 1960 Act, would not justify cock fighting being permitted to be held. Even assuming that bullock cart racing and bull race competitions violate the provisions of the 1960 Act, that would not necessitate “cockfights” being continued to be held. We, however, make it clear that, since the question whether animals suffer unnecessary pain and suffering during bullock cart racing or bull

¶169

¶170

race competition is not the subject matter of examination in these Writ Petitions, the observations made by us hereinabove shall not be understood as an expression of our opinion on the validity or otherwise of such events, and whether or not they contravene the provisions of the 1960 Act.

¶171

VIII. FAILURE TO CONSTITUTE SPCAs IN ALL THE DISTRICTS OF THE STATE HAS RESULTED IN THE 1960 ACT NOT BEING EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED:

¶172

Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Counsel for some of the petitioners, would contend that failure to constitute SPCAs, in all the districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh, has resulted in tardy implementation of the provisions of the 1960 Act; and, despite the repeated directions of the Supreme Court, the State Government has turned a blind eye to the urgent need to constitute SPCAs in all the districts of the State.

¶173

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001 (the “2001 Rules” for short) were notified on 26.03.2001. Rule 2(e) thereof defines “Society” to mean the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (hereinafter referred to as “SPCA”) established in any district under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other corresponding law applicable in a State, and to include the existing SPCA functioning in any district. Rule 3 relates to the SPCA in a district and, under sub-Rule (1) thereof, every State Government shall, by notification in the official gazette, establish, as soon as may be and in any event within six months from the date of commencement of the rules, a society for every district in the State to be the SPCA in that district. Rule 3(2)

¶174

¶175

enables the State Government or the local authority to appoint a Managing Committee consisting of the Chairperson to be appointed with the concurrence of the Animal Welfare Board of India, and to consist of such number of other members as the State Government, or the local authority, consider it necessary. The Committee is required to have atleast two members representing Animal Welfare Organisations which are actively involved in the work of prevention of cruelty to animals, and the welfare of animals preferably within the district; and atleast two members to be the persons elected by the general body of the members of the Society. Rule 3(3) stipulates that the duties and powers of the Society shall be to aid the Government, the Board and the local authority, in enforcing the provisions of the Act and to make such bye-laws and guidelines as it may deem necessary for the efficient discharge of its duties. Rule 3(4) confers power on the Society or any person authorised by it, if it or he has reasonable grounds to believe that any person has committed an offence under the Act, to require such person to produce forthwith any animal in his possession, control, custody or ownership, and to stop any vehicle or enter into any premises in order to conduct a search or inquiry, and to seize an animal in respect of which it or such authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under the Act is being committed, and deal with it in accordance with law. Rule 3(5) enables the State Government, in consultation with the Animal Welfare Board, to confer additional powers by way of Rules upon any society for exercising powers and discharging the functions assigned to it under the Rules.

¶176

¶177

In its order, in Geeta Seshamani v. Union of India⁶ , the Supreme Court observed that, in many States, the State Animal Welfare Boards were not constituted and, therefore, implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules were not done effectively; and the Animal Welfare Boards in the States were not taking effective steps to establish Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs) in every district as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001. The Supreme Court directed the States, which had not constituted the State Animal Welfare Boards, to constitute them within a period of three months; and also see that SPCAs are constituted in every district as contemplated under the Rules. Though the period of three months stipulated by the Supreme Court, in its order dated 06.08.2008, expired on 06.11.2008, more than eight years ago, SPCAs have not yet been constituted in all the districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶178

Again in its order, in Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India⁷ , the Supreme Court observed that it was imperative for all the concerned State Governments to constitute District SPCAs in each and every District of the State as per Rule 3 of the SPCA Rules, within four weeks from the date of the order. The State Governments concerned were directed to constitute State Animal Welfare Boards, to supervise and co-ordinate with the District SPCAs, within eight weeks from the date of the order. All State Governments were directed to submit their compliance report to

¶179

6 (2008) 17 SCC 55

¶180

7 (Order in W.P. (Civil) No.881 of 2014 dated 13.07.2015)

¶181

¶182

the Supreme Court within eight weeks. While the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court dated 13.07.2015 required the State Governments to constitute District SPCAs within four weeks, and the State Animal Welfare Boards within eight weeks, the District SPCAs have not yet been constituted in all the District of the State of Andhra Pradesh, though nearly a year and a half has elapsed since then.

¶183

Establishment of SPCAs in all the Districts, and appointing Managing Committees for such SPCAs, would have ensured effective implementation of the provisions of the 1960 Act, and prevent acts of cruelty on these cocks/roosters, as the 2001 Rules confer power on the SPCAs, or any person authorised by them, to cause production of, and to seize, any animal in respect of which an offence under the 1960 Act is being committed. It would have also enabled the SPCAs to prevent cock fighting, and thereby ensure that these cocks/roosters do not undergo the trauma, pain and suffering which they would suffer during the cock fight.

¶184

IX. BETTING AND GAMBLING:

¶185

In her affidavit Ms.Gauri Maulekhi, National Trustee, People for Animals, India submits that cockfights are organised as entertainment for persons; a single event usually includes a series of fights, and an entry fee is charged from people who come to watch them; a number of illegal activities take place around the cockfight events, and persons usually gamble on the outcome of the fights.

¶186

¶187

The Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974 (“1974 Act” for short) came into force with effect from 01.11.1974. Section 2(2) defines ‘gaming’ to mean playing a game for winning of prizes in money or otherwise, and includes playing a game of mutka or satta and lucky board and wagering or betting. Under explanation (1) thereto, for the purpose of Section 2(2), wagering or betting shall be deemed to comprise the collection or soliciting of bets, the receipt or distribution of winnings or prizes in money or otherwise in receipt of any wager or bet, or any act which is intended to aid or facilitate wagering or betting or such collection, soliciting, receipt or distribution. Section 9 prescribes the penalty for gaming, or setting birds or animals to fight in a public street or place. Section 9(1) stipulates that, whoever is found gaming or is reasonably suspected to be gaming in any public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have, or are permitted to have, access shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees or with both. Section 9(2) stipulates that, whoever is found setting any birds or animals to fight or is reasonably suspected to be aiding or abetting such fighting of birds or animals in any public street or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have, or are permitted to have, access, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to fifty rupees or with both. Section 10(1) enables any police officer to arrest and search without warrant any person referred to in Section 9. Section 10(2) enables such police officer to seize all moneys, all instruments of gaming and all things reasonably

¶188

¶189

suspected to be instruments of gaming found in the public street, thoroughfare or place or found with the persons arrested by him, and all birds or animals found with the persons arrested by him, or are reasonably suspected to have been kept for being set to fight in the public street, thoroughfare or place. Section 12(ii) stipulates that, on conviction of any person under Section 9, the convicting magistrate may order that all the birds or animals seized shall be sold; and the proceeds thereof, with all the moneys seized, shall be forfeited.

¶190

As noted hereinabove, Section 9(2) of the 1974 Act prohibits birds or animals being set against each other for the purpose of fighting. Section 10(1) of the 1974 Act enables police officers to arrest persons who indulge in such events, and to seize the animals and the money collected by them from others. Cock fighting falls foul not only of the provisions of the 1960 Act, but also of the 1974 Act. The concerned police officers are statutorily obligated to ensure that such events are not held, and these cocks/roosters are not subjected to cruelty i.e., trauma, pain and suffering which they would undoubtedly undergo during such events.

¶191

The aforesaid provisions of the 1974 Act confer power on police officers to arrest, and search without warrant, any person who is found setting birds or animals to fight each other, or is reasonably suspected to be aiding or abetting such fighting. They have also been conferred the power to seize all moneys, all instruments of gaming and all birds or animals found with the person arrested, or which may be reasonably suspected to have

¶192

¶193

been kept for being set to fight. Though powers have been conferred on police officers to prevent events such as cock-fighting, and to seize cocks and any money which may have been collected for the purpose of betting by those involved, it does appear that the aforesaid provisions of the 1974 Act are being observed by police officers more in breach than in practice.

¶194

X. PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE 1960 ACT IS INSIGNIFICANT :

¶195

Possibly, one of the main reasons why such cockfight events continue unchecked and are conducted with impunity, is the insignificant punishment prescribed under the 1960 Act for holding such events. Penalty, for violation of the rights of animals under the 1960 Act, are primarily insignificant since laws are made by human-beings. The punishment prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence and is, hence, brazenly violated defeating the very object and the purpose of the Act. ( A. Nagaraja¹ ). Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. The government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It also invites anarchy. ( Olmstead et al. v. United States⁸ ). There is, hence, the necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties to

¶196

8 1928 SCC OnLine US SC 131 = 277 US 438 (1928): 48 S.Ct 564

¶197

¶198

safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the 1960 Act. ( A.

¶199

Nagaraja¹ ).

¶200

XI. CONCLUSION :

¶201

As held by the Supreme Court, in A. Nagaraja¹ , the insignificant punishment, which can be imposed under the 1960 Act, has emboldened those, who conduct these events, to continue their illegal activities unhindered. Participation of public representatives in such events does not augur well for the rule of law as breaking of the law, by the law makers themselves, would only breed contempt for the rule of law, and embolden others to violate the law with impunity.

¶202

Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No.177 of 2016, would suggest an action plan for effective implementation of the provisions of the 1960 and the 1974 Act. Learned Counsel would submit that the District Collectors, the Superintendent of Police and the Director of Animal Husbandry should be directed to submit an action plan to stop formation of grounds, and other arrangements, for cockfights; the District Administration should issue appropriate notifications, and the relevant notifications should be given adequate publicity; the District administration must direct police officials to serve notices on each of the public representatives, from Sarpanch to Members of Parliament, informing them of the legal position, and seeking a declaration from them that cockfights are illegal; police officials must be directed to constitute special teams to identify roosters which have been fed in an unnatural way only for the purpose of betting, and seize them well before commencement of the

¶203

¶204

Sankranthi festival; the Tahsildars and the Revenue Divisional Officers concerned must be directed to issue notifications to the panchayats that using agricultural fields, gardens and other public places, for formation of bout rings, is prohibited; wide publicity should be given through news-papers and television channels; and proof of such publication must be directed to be submitted to this Court.

¶205

While we are conscious of the need for judicial restraint, and that we should be wary of treading into areas which are in the executive realm, we are constrained to issue certain directions as we are satisfied that the concerned officials are either unable or unwilling to ensure effective implementation of the law, and are indifferent to the plight of these cocks and roosters which undergo unnecessary pain and suffering during these cockfight events. The following directions are issued to ensure that cockfights are not held, during Sankranthi festival seasons, hereinafter:-

¶206

(1). As mandated by the 2001 Rules, and the orders of the Supreme Court in Geeta Seshamani v. Union of India (W.P. (Civil) No(s).440 of 2000 dated 06.08.2008 and Gauri Maulekhi v. Union of India : (W.P. (Civil) No.881 of 2014 dated 13.07.2015, the Government of A.P. shall, at the earliest and in any event not later than 31.01.2017, constitute SPCAs in all Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh strictly in accordance with the 2001 Rules.

¶207

(2). The District Collectors of all the Districts, more particularly of West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna and Guntur, shall constitute joint inspection teams, for each Mandal in their respective Districts, consisting of a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, the Tahsildar, and a representative of either the Animal Welfare Board of India or a member of a non-governmental organization espousing the cause of animals or persons involved in the prevention of cruelty to animals. Two police constables, and a photographer, shall assist each of these inspection teams which shall be constituted on or before

¶208

¶209

07.01.2017. These joint inspection teams shall be provided necessary assistance by the District Administration to tour all villages in their Mandal, and identify playgrounds/cock-pits where such events are proposed to be held.

¶210

(3). The District Collector/the Commissioners of Police/Superintendent of Police of the District, on being informed of the places where such playgrounds and cockpits have been formed, shall take immediate action to ensure that such playgrounds are not utilized for conducting cockfights, if need be, by exercising powers under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

¶211

(4). The Joint inspection team shall be entitled to enter any premises to seize cocks/roosters which are intended to be set up for cock-fights.

¶212

(5). They shall also be entitled to seize instruments used or intended to be used for the cock fights, and any money which may have been collected towards betting at such events.

¶213

(6). All the District Collectors, the Commissioners of Police and the Superintendent of Police, more particularly from these four Districts, shall ensure effective implementation of the provisions of the 1960 and the 1974 Acts. They shall be held personally responsible for lapses, if any, on their part in ensuring its proper and effective implementation during the ensuing Sankranthi festivals.

¶214

(7). The District Collectors and the Superintendents of Police may, if need be, organise village level meetings to inform the general public of the provisions of the 1960 and the 1974 Acts, the need to ensure its effective implementation, and to prevent cruelty to animals i.e., cocks/roosters.

¶215

(8). As held by the Supreme Court, in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja: (2014) 7 SCC 547 , the District Collectors, the Commissioners of Police and the Superintendent of Police shall be entitled to take disciplinary action against the erring Tahsildars and Police officers for their failure to ensure effective implementation of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts.

¶216

While W.P. PIL No.320 of 2014 is being disposed of by this common order, W.P. PIL No.177 of 2016 shall be listed for orders before us on 06.02.2017. The District Collectors, and the

¶217

¶218

Superintendent of Police, of the Districts of West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna and Guntur shall submit their individual reports regarding the action taken by them to prevent cock-fights and betting. They shall, in their respective reports, furnish details of the number of roosters, the instruments used in cock fights, and the money collected by organisers of these cock fights towards betting, seized by police officers from the date of constitution of the Joint Inspection teams till 24.01.2017. These reports shall be submitted by them to this Court latest by 31.01.2017.

¶219

W.P. (PIL) No.320 of 2014 and W.P. (PIL) M.P. No.305 of 2016 in W.P.(PIL) No.177 of 2016 are disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Petitions in W.P.(PIL) No.320 of 2014, pending if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶220

List W.P. (PIL) No.177 of 2016 for “orders” on 06.02.2017.

¶221

(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶222

_______________________________ (A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J)

¶223

Date: 26-12-2016.

¶224

Note: (1). L.R. Copy to be marked.

¶225

(2). Registry to forthwith forward a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary for Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh by Special messenger. The Principal Secretary for Home shall, in turn, forthwith forward copies of this order to the District Collectors, Commissioners of Police and District Superintendent of Police, of all the Districts.

¶226

B/o MRKR/CS

Narahari Jagadish Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narahari Jagadish Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Forum for Good Governance, Vs The State of Telangana

Kona Raghupathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Tirumala Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Khaja Aijazuddin, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary to

Jammi Nagamani Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary

O.C.Sankshema Sangham Vs the State of Ap., B.C.Welfare (C2) Dept., and 4 Others

Prajwala, Vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home

M/s.Viswabharathi Steels (P) Limited, Gooty Road, Vs Commercial Tax Officer-1 (Fac)

M/s. Hemadri Cements Limited, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasari Appala Narsamma, W/o. Paidayya, Aged 48 years. Vs State of Ap

M/s. R.a.K.Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goverment of Andhra Pradesh

M-Net Communications, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Anitha Constructions Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Transport