Justice GA Sanap’s bench of one judge stated that cases involving animal cruelty should be handled with the utmost sensitivity because animals cannot speak and cannot demand their rights.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed that because animals cannot ask for their rights, cases involving animal cruelty must be handled with extreme sensitivity. Animals have feelings and emotions that are comparable to those of humans.
Single judge bench of Justice GA Sanap said that since animals cannot speak, they cannot demand their rights.
“Animals have emotions, feelings and senses similar to a human being. The only difference is that the animals cannot speak and therefore, though their rights are recognized under the law, they cannot assert the same. The rights of the animals, welfare of the animals and protection of the animals has to be taken care of by the concerned in accordance with law. It is to be noted that while considering the case of cruelty, to the animals in any form, the case has to be approached and decided with great sensitivity”, the judge observed.
The observations were made during the hearing of certain applicants for custody of 39 bovines who claimed to have a license to sell and buy those animals.
The animals had been intercepted and seized under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act when they were being transported in trucks illegally in an inhuman manner.
Despite not being accused of any crimes, the petitioners applied for custody of the animals claiming to have a license to sell and purchase them.
The petitioners moved the High Court after the Magistrate of Nagpur denied their request, which was upheld by the Sessions Court.
The petitioners argued that the animals could be returned to them in the interim because a final decision could take some time. This would allow the petitioners to keep the money they made from milking the buffaloes.
The cCurt noted that the number of animals being transported was beyond the capacity of the vehicles and the prescribed limit under the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978.
Additionally, the trucks lacked the provisions for water and feed as required by the Rules.
“The milching buffaloes were transported in a very cruel condition. It is seen on perusal of the record that the owners, who had played important role in these cases, have not been made the accused,” the Court observed.
Equity Sanap depended upon a High Court request which had expressed that in cases including charges of remorselessness to the creatures, it was not legitimate to handover guardianship to proprietors of the creature.
As needs be, the High Court would not give authority to the creatures to the applicants.
It directed Maa Foundation, the registered gaushala, to take over custody of the animal till final adjudication of the matter
Additionally, the court ordered the concerned officer from the police station to make two monthly visits to the Gaushala with a veterinary officer and to report those visits to the relevant magistrate.
Advocate Laique Hussain showed up for solicitors.
HD Dubey, an additional public prosecutor, testified for the State.
The Gaushala was represented by Raju Gupta and DR Galande, attorneys.
Written by- Archana chandane intern under legal vidhiya