CASE ANALYSIS –   Ansar Ahmad vs State of Maharashtra 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. On 1st March 2022 and 10 th March 2022 police at Katol Naka, Nagpur intercepted goods vehicles which were then alleged to be transporting cattle in inhumane, overcrowded and illegal living conditions through violation of the Animal Welfare laws and practices. 

2. Police lodged FIRs against the accused persons on various counts of variously violating the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Model Act, 1960, and on counts of violating provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including transport of animals in overcrowded space; or with insufficient safety measures, etc. Cattle taken out of the vehicles was temporarily kept at Maa Foundation Gaushala 

3. The petitioners asserted their right of ownership to the cattle since they supposedly acquired the cow by legally buying them by APMC licences and selling them by trade of their choice. The petitioners said that they were not called as accused with reference to the FIRs. 

4. The Magistrate had rejected the petitioner’s application of interim custody on 11.04.2022 and the Sessions Court rejected this application relying on revisions dated 23.08.2022. Both Courts of appeal agreed that the welfare of animals is much more apparent than the sense of ownership. 

5. The Petitioners approached the Honourable Bombay High Court under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondents, the State, and the Gaushala responded to the petitions by saying that the Petitioners were in violation of the Act, transported the Cattle, and that the Gaushala was in a stronger position to assist in the security of the Animals in the course of the trial.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether the petitioners can be given interim custody of the cattle that has been seized pending trial?

2. Whether the mode of transportation violated animal welfare laws and disentitled the petitioners to such custody?

3. Whether the registered Gaushala is a more suitable custodian under Section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960?

JUDGEMENT

  The court through clear observation and interpretation of statutes and judicial precedents laid down the following judgement

1. The Court stated that the interim custody of the animals could not be given to the petitioners since it was stated that the transportation of the cattle was grossly violating the various provisions as enshrined in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960, the Transport of Animals Rule,1978 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989.

 2. With reference to Rule 56 of Transport of animals rules, 1978, the Court stated that a goods vehicle can carry only six cattle pigs or cattle and this is backed by veterinary certificates and must meet the safety requirements. The vehicles in the instant case had carried 15 to 19 animals and were devoid of any partition, water or fodder, or veterinary certificate of fitness and were a clear case of cruelty under Section 11(1)(d) of the PCA Act,1960. 

3. It was noted by the Court that Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 had been inserted in the year 2016 and made mandatory making it clear that structural and safety conditions were to be met by the vehicles carrying livestock. It observed that all the vehicles in this case were neither licenced by RTO nor they matched Bureau of Indian Standards (e.g. IS-14904 for cattle transportation). 

4. Based on Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547, the Court restated that, the PCA Act is a welfare legislation, and was to be interpreted keeping in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy. It said that the judicial system must safeguard the animal on the basis of the principle of parens patriae particularly where the presence of cruelty is recorded.

5. The Court also relied on the decision that was made in Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. In State of Maharashtra where the interim custody was refused in one such case involving 18 cattle transported in a single truck. In it, it was the view that refusal to hand animals back to owners was justified by such a clear violation of Rule 56 regardless of the possibility of dispute in ownership.

 6. The Court relied upon the case of Raghuram Sharma v. C. Thulsi: In that case, the Supreme Court had observed that the safety and health of the animal in the trial process should be taken care of and even ownership is not a ground of granting interim custody of the animal when there is evidence of cruelty. 

7. The fact that the animals were milching buffalo and that its use was vital to the livelihood of the petitioners was thrown out. The Court mentioned that the economic impact does not nullify the issue of protection against cruelty especially when there is a flagrant violation of statutory rules. 

8. The Court observed that the animals were in the custody of the Maa Foundation Gaushala which was registered under Rule 3 of the 2017 Rules and was willing to forego all expenses spend in feeding and maintenance of the animals. This ensured it became an appropriate and more humane custodian of the animals in trial. 

9. Based on that the Court rejected the writ petitions and supported the decisions of the Magistrate and Sessions Court, denying the petitioners the interim custody. 

10. The Court also directed the Investigating Officer to take steps in line with Rule 3(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017; and asked the Magistrate to visit the animals every two months with the police and the Veterinary Officer to check that the animals were being well maintained.

REASONING

1. The Court started by examining the Transport of animals Rules 1978, and in rule 56, it was written that no more than six cattle be transported in a goods vehicle and that there shall be space, food, water and proper floor. Here the Court determined that there were 15 to 19 cattle per vehicle, which were stuffed into the truck without dividers, without the possibility to lie down or in absolute contravention of these protections. 

2. The Court showing the breach in Rule 47 that states that animals which are being transported must be certified by qualified veterinary practitioners to be fit to travel. Some such certificates were not produced. This lack coupled with the ill state of transport affirmed the prima facie cruelty at Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 

3. The Court there after considered Rule 125E of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, that was inserted through the amendment in 2016. It requires that the vehicles being used to transport animals should be in line with Bureau of Indian Standards (i.e. IS-5238, IS-14904) and registered through Regional Transport Office (RTO). In the case at hand, not a single vehicle was certified by RTO in relation to carrying the animals in it and not even a single one met the structural records such as anti-slippery floor, permanent partition, or proper ventilation. 

4. To solidify its commitment, the Court referred to the Supreme Court (2014) 7 SCC 547 Animal welfare board v. A. Nagaraja and stated that the PCA Act is not only penal but also welfare-based. The judgment is that, through the doctrine of parens patriae, the courts are obliged to advance the rights and dignity of animals and the provisions are to be broadly construed in order to avoid cruelty.

5. The Court also relied upon Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. In State of Maharashtra, when 18 animals were discovered in one truck, the Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision giving custody to owners. That ruling ruled out that even failure to resume trial is no excuse to acceptable animals in case cruelty is clear. Here the High Court noticed that the circumstances were the same, and the actions of the petitioners vis-a-vis such a course of action in the said case also brought about cruelty. 

6. The Court also referred to the case of Raghuram Sharma v. C. Thulsi, in which the SC again said that even the owners may be denied the opportunity to get the interim custody in case the method of transport carried cruelty or endangered the safety of the animals. This then was the principle that the High Court accepted when it observed that ownership is not conclusive in circumstances where there exists prima facie evidence of cruelty. 

7. The Court also dismissed the claim sustained by the petitioners that the animals were milching buffaloes vital to their business and economic wellbeing. It believed that animal welfare should prevail above economic loss and such plea cannot be entertained where an illegal principle of law is infringed.

 8. The Court also looked at the circumstances of the Gaushala as the Care of which had willingly accepted to forego the fees of feeding and maintenance, and had actually registered itself with the 2017 PCA Rules. It noted the statutory purpose of this arrangement was care and protection of animals which were under the case property. 

9. That being the case, the Court found that the petitioners had not established any legal or humane actions and that the further captivity by Gaushala was not only legally viable but also practically right of the welfare of the animals kept with the Gaushala.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149474173/
2. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
3. The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Act, 1960
4. Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

This article is written by Bala Subramanian. M “2^nd Year Law Student at Tamil Nadu National Law University” an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.