Arkadyuti Sarkar wrote this article, which Subhangee Biswas updated. It covers the provisions under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, about the functions of the Animal Welfare Board and the implications of animal experiments. It concludes by discussing a few landmark cases. 

Introduction

Like humans, animals can understand physical and mental pain and their degree. The Earth is a shared space, and it is essential that the other living creatures also live and survive like human beings. However, animals are considered property, which is reflected in inadequate punishment not provided in animal cruelty cases. We can witness an evident increase of such incidents, including extreme instances in which an animal is burnt alive for fun or to post on social media. This has led to the formulation of legislation to protect the lives of animals from these atrocities. 

This article will discuss The Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It was enacted to punish the persons indulging in cruelty against animals, to establish an animal welfare board, to identify the acts amounting to cruelty against animals, etc. The Act contains the fundamental laws relating to animal cruelty in the Indian scenario. We will be covering the key provisions of this Act along with its importance and implications. 

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 

The Act was enacted in 1960 and is credited to Shrimati Rukmini Arundale, a well-known humanitarian. In 1954, she introduced the Bill corresponding to the Act of 1960 as a replacement for the then Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890. 

She discussed how the Act would be more comprehensive and would cover more types of cruelties than the previous Act. Consequently, the Act of 1960 was formulated and came into force. 

One worthy difference is that the Act of 1960 provided protection and necessary penalties for animals abused under the guise of research and experiment. The Act purports to prevent animal cruelty incidents and provide laws that can punish the culprits.

Scope and purpose of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

To understand the purpose of any Act, we need to refer to its Preamble. The Preamble of this Act states,  

“to prevent the 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 Act aims to protect animals from unnecessary pain and suffering by providing a standard of care and treatment, prescribing punishments for cruelty against animals, and promoting animal welfare. The main objective is to stop the unnecessary cruelty inflicted upon animals. 

We can list the scope and purpose of the Act in the following manner:

• It defines animals and different forms of animals like domestic and captive,
• It lays down provisions related to the establishment, constitution, powers, and functions of an Animal Welfare Board.
• It discusses different forms of cruelty, their exceptions, and the prescribed punishment for the same.
• It also lays down provisions allowing for killing a suffering animal against whom any cruelty has been committed to relieve it from further suffering.
• It states guidelines related to the experimentation on animals for scientific purposes.
• It also lists provisions related to the exhibition of performing animals and offences committed against them.
• Lastly, this Act provides for a limitation period of 3 months beyond which no prosecution shall lie for any offences under this Act. 

Important Provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

Definitions 

Animal

Though we all know what an animal is, we need to understand what the Act says about the definition of an animal. 

According to Section 2(a) of this Act, an animal means any living creature except a human being. This definition is complete and all-inclusive. The term “animals”, does not solely refer to mammals but also includes birds, reptiles, etc.

Illustrations include tigers, deer, cheetahs, dogs, cats, buffaloes, snakes, lizards, alligators, crocodiles, and elephants.

Captive Animal

According to Section 2(c) of this Act, any animal except a domestic animal, which is under captivity or confinement, temporarily or permanently, or is subjected to any appliance or machine that prevents its escape from such captivity or imprisonment, or which is pinioned or has a maimed appearance.

To sum up, this provision has the following essentials for deeming an animal as a captive animal:

• The animal should not be a domestic animal;
• The captivity or confinement is either temporary or permanent;
• The animal has been subjected to any form of appliance or contrivance to prevent it from escaping from captivity or confinement; or
• Such an animal has been pinned down by someone or something or deliberately injured to prevent its escape from captivity or confinement.

Domestic animal

Section 2(d) of this Act lays down certain conditions for considering an animal as a domestic animal:

• Any tamed or sufficiently tamed animal, 
• With the object to serve some valuable purpose of man.

It also includes animals that have partly or wholly become tamed, although there is or has not been any intention of it to be tamed.

The Act distinguishes a captive animal and a domestic animal. Captive animals do not include domestic animals; they are just held captive. On the other hand, a domestic animal is an animal that is tamed to a certain extent.

Owner

According to Section 2(f) of the Act, an “owner” concerning an animal includes the following people:

• The owner of the animal,
• Any person who has the possession or custody of the animal for the time being. In this regard, whether the actual owner has consented to such a person having custody of the animal is immaterial. 

Phooka or doom dev

According to Section 2(g) of the Act, “phooka” or “doom dev” means any process by which air or any other substance is introduced into the female organ of a milch animal. The process is used to draw off any milk secretion from the animal.

Duty of the person in charge of animals

Section 3 of the Act states that a person in charge or in possession of the care of any animal must take all reasonable steps to ensure the animal’s well-being and prevent, upon the animal, any form of infliction of “unnecessary pain or suffering”.

The Section assigns the duty to look after an animal’s well-being to the person responsible for the animal.

Animal Welfare Board of India 

One of the salient facets of the Act is the provision of the Animal Welfare Board of India. It was established under Section 4 of the Act in 1962. The Animal Welfare Board is a statutory advisory body on animal welfare laws. The Board promotes animal welfare in the country. Over the years, the Board has remained a leading authority in the animal welfare movement. 

The Board ensures compliance with animal welfare laws and provides grants to Animal Welfare Organizations to promote animal welfare activities. Additionally, the Board advises the Indian Government in matters related to animal welfare.

Sections 4 to 10 of this Act lay down the provisions relating to the animal welfare board’s constitution, funding, and functioning. Let us deal with each section one by one.

Constitution of the Board

First and foremost, the board’s constitution is mentioned. Section 4 mentions establishing an animal welfare board by the Central Government, purporting to provide for animal welfare and extend protection against animals from unnecessary pain or suffering. 

The Board is to be considered a corporate body having unending succession along with a common seal with the power:

• Of acquiring, holding and disposing of property; and 
• Of suing and being sued by its name.

As for the number and kind of members, the Board consists of 28 members, of which 6 are Members of Parliament. Among the 6 members of Parliament, 2 members are to be from Rajya Sabha, and 4 members are to be from Lok Sabha. 

Section 5 of this Act provides the list of the following persons who are to constitute the animal welfare board:

1. The Inspector-General of Forests to the Government of India, ex officio;
2. The Animal Husbandry Officer to the Government of India, ex-officio;
3. Two persons, the appointment of whose is to be made by the Central Government to represent the Union Ministers that deal with home affairs and education;
4. One person, appointed by the Union Government as a representative of the Indian Board for Wild Life;
5. Three persons, whose appointment is to be made by the Union Government if it believes that such persons are presently or in the past been actively engaged in animal welfare or are well-known humanitarians;
6. One person, appointed as a representative of any association of veterinary practitioners, if the Central Government opines that such association needs representation on the Board and the association itself has to elect the person in the manner prescribed;
7. Two persons who would represent the practitioners of modern and ancient systems of medicine, who are to be nominated by the Central Government;
8. One person as a representative of each of 2 municipal corporations, if the Central Government opines that such corporations need representation on the Board and the corporations themselves are to elect the person in the manner prescribed;
9. One person who is to represent each of such three animal welfare organisations, if the Central Government opines that such organisations need representation on the Board on the Board and the organisations themselves are to elect the person in the manner prescribed;
10. One person, who is to be appointed as a representative of each of such 3 societies dealing with the prevention of cruelty to animals, on the opinion of the Central Government that such societies should be represented on the Board and the person is to be chosen in the manner prescribed;
11. Three persons who are to be nominated by the Central Government;
12. Six Parliamentary members, out of which four are from the Lok Sabha and two from the Rajya Sabha;

Sub-section (2) to Section 5 states that the persons mentioned above can appoint another person to attend the board meetings as their representative on their behalf;

Sub-section (3) to Section 5 empowers the Union Government to nominate one of the board members to be its Chairman and another to be its Vice-chairman.

Reconstitution of the Board

Section 5A was introduced by the Amendment of 1982. It provides for the reconstitution of the Board. This provision was inserted so that the Chairman and the other members of the Board can continue their office till the exact date and that their respective terms of office also end on the same date. 

To this effect, Sub-section (1) to Section 5A has vested powers in the Central Government to reconstitute the Board by publishing a notification in the Official Gazette after the Amendment of 1982 comes into force.

Sub-section (2) states that the Board is to be reconstituted every three years from the date of the first reconstruction conducted as per Sub-section (1) to Section 5A.

Sub-section (3) provides that the reconstituted Board is to include those members who were the members of the Board just preceding the reconstitution date. However, the term of office for these members would only be for the unexpired portion of the term, the period for which they would have continued in their office if the reconstitution had not occurred. The vacancies that might arise due to the discontinuation of membership of the Board should be filled up as if they are casual vacancies for the rest of the term of the reconstituted Board.

The proviso to Section 5A states that sub-section (3) of Section 5A does not apply to persons who discontinue being Board members due to the change in Sub-section (1) of Section 5 after the Amendment of 1982.

Term of Office and service conditions of the Board members

Generally, the term of office of the Board members is 3 years. The different terms of office are provided in detail in Section 6, which states:

1. A Board member holds the office for 3 years from the date when the Board was reconstituted;
2. The reconstituted Chairman and Board members shall hold office until the term for which the Board was reconstituted expires.
3. The term of office of an ex-officio member shall continue until he holds the office by his membership;
4. The term of office of elected representatives, appointed under clause (c), clause (e), clause (f), clause (g), clause (h) or clause (i) of Section 5, shall continue as long as they continue as the members of the body which elected him;
5. In case a member is chosen, elected, or nominated for filling the vacant position of a board member, then such membership shall last in conformity with the tenure for whose position the member has been so chosen, elected or nominated;
6. The Central Government possesses the authority to remove any member from office. For such removal, two things need to be observed:
   1. The reasons for such removal are to be recorded in writing, and,
   2. The member removed should be allowed to show cause against such proposed removal. 

The vacancy created due to such removal shall be treated as casual.

1. The Board members shall receive allowances, as the Board may provide with prior approval of the Central Government;
2. Any activity or proceeding by the Board shall remain unquestioned merely because of any vacancy in or constitutional defect of the Board. 
3. The ex-officio members of the Board are responsible for discharging all the Board’s powers and functions during the interim period between the expiry of the reconstitution term under Section 5A and the further reconstitution under the same Section.

Board Secretary and other employees

According to Section 7 of this Act, the Central Government shall appoint one of its officers as the Board Secretary.

Sub-section (2) to Section 7 states that the Board has the authority to appoint the necessary number of officers or employees to exercise its powers or discharge its functions. This power is subject to the rules enacted by the Central Government. Moreover, with the prior approval of the Central Government, the Board may ascertain the terms and conditions of service of the Board employees and officials.

Funds of the Board

The funding of the Board mainly comes from the Government and donations. According to Section 8 of this Act, the Board’s fund shall consist of the following:

1. Governmental grants allocated to it time and again;
2. Contributions, donations, gifts, subscriptions, etc., made to the Board by any individual or local authority.

Functions of the Board

Having dealt with who constitutes the Board and for how long, it is pertinent to know what functions the Board has to perform. Section 9 enlists the functions of the Board, which are mentioned below:

1. The board supervises the laws relating to the prevention of cruelty against animals and advises the Government on necessary amendments to such law;
2. The board advises the Central Government on the enactment of rules under this Act, emphasising the prevention of unnecessary pain or suffering to animals in general, especially during their transportation from one place to another or during their use as performing animals or during their captivity or confinement;
3. The board advises the Government, any local authority or any other person regarding the improvements in the vehicles’ design for reducing the burden on draught animals;
4. The board ensures that all the essential steps are taken to improve the conditions of the animals. This can be done by encouraging or providing for the construction of shades, water troughs, etc and by providing veterinary treatment for the animals;
5. The board advises the government, any local authority, or any individual in:
   1. Designing slaughterhouses, or
   2. Maintenance of slaughterhouses, or
   3. In connection with animal slaughtering,

For the elimination of unwanted physical or mental pain or suffering in the pre-slaughter stages as far as practicable for ensuring the animals are executed in as humane manner as possible;

1. The board ensures the adoption of all necessary measures for ensuring that unwanted animals are killed, either instantly or after being made numb to any such connected pain or suffering by the local authorities;
2. The board encourages that the following are formed or established by extending financial or any other assistance:

1. Pinjrapoles,
2. Rescue homes,
3. Animal shelters,
4. Sanctuaries, etc.,

where animals and birds may find shelter during their old age or when they require protection;

1. The board cooperates with or coordinates the work of associations or bodies that are established purporting to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and birds or for their protection;
2. The board also extends financial assistance to locally functional animal welfare organisations or encourages the formation of animal welfare organisations in any local area whose work shall be guided and supervised by the Board; 
3. The board advises the Government on medical care and attention that may be provided in animal hospitals, along with providing financial and other assistance to animal hospitals;
4. The board also takes part in imparting education concerning the humane treatment of animals, leading to the formation of public opinion against the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to animals, and also to the promotion of animal welfare through lectures, books, posters, cinematographic exhibitions, etc.;
5. Lastly, the board advises the Government on any matters relating to animal welfare or preventing the cause of unnecessary pain or suffering upon animals.

Regulatory powers of the Board

According to Section 10, the Board may enact essential rules and regulations for administering its affairs and carrying out its functions, subject to prior approval of the Central Government.

Cruelty to animals in general

Acts to be considered cruel

The Act penalises animal cruelty. But what acts constitute animal cruelty is defined in the Act, in Sub-section (1) to Section 11. It enlists the following acts which, when committed by a person against an animal, are considered as cruelty:

1. Beating, kicking, running over, driving over, loading over, torturing or otherwise treating any animal in a way that causes unnecessary pain or suffering to it or causes or being the owner permits such treatment;
2. Employing any animal in work or labour, the animal being unfit for such employment by any disease, infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, or, being the owner lets any such unfit animal be so employed; or
3. Causing willful and unreasonable administration of any drug or substance, injurious to any domestic or captive animal or willfully and unreasonably inflicting or attempting to inflict an intake of any such drug or substance by any domestic or captive animal; or
4. Conveying or carrying any animal in a manner or position that causes the animal to suffer from unnecessary pain or suffering; or
5. Caging or confining any animal or other receptacle having insufficient height, length and breadth, which restricts the animal from having a reasonable opportunity to move;
6. Keeping any animal chained or tethered using an unreasonably short or heavy chain for an unreasonable period; or
7. Being the owner, negligently exercising or causing such reasonable negligence to any dog habitually chained up or keeping the dog in close confinement; or
8. Being the owner of any captive animal, failing to provide adequate food, drink or shelter to the animal; or
9. Abandoning any animal in situations leading to the sufferance of pain because of starvation or thirst, without any reason; or
10. Being the owner, deliberately permitting any animal to go at large in any street while the animal is affected with a contaminating or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse, permits any diseased or disabled animals to die in any street; or
11. Offering for sale or possessing any animal that is suffering pain due to: 
    1. Mutilation, 
    2. Starvation, 
    3. Thirst, 
    4. Overcrowding, or, 
    5. Other ill-treatment, or,
12. Without any need, mutilating any animal or killing any animal by unnecessary cruelty; or,
13. With the sole object of providing entertainment:
    1. Confining or causing confinement of any animal in a manner, thereby making it an object of prey for any other animal, or,
    2. Inciting any animal to fight or bait other animal, or,
14. In this clause, three things are covered, namely:
    1. Organising, keeping, using or acting in the management of any place which is to be used for animal fighting or for baiting any animal, or, 
    2. Permitting or offering such place for such purpose, or,  
    3. Receiving money for the admission of some other person to any place which is reserved for the purposes mentioned above, or,
15. Promoting or participating in any shooting match or competition where captive animals are released for such an event;

Two types of punishment are given for animal cruelty: one for a first offence and another for a subsequent offence. 

If any person commits any of the above-mentioned acts, he shall be punishable, in case of a first offence, with a fine, the minimum amount of which is Rs. 10 and the maximum amount is Rs. 50. 

In the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within 3 years of the previous offence, with a fine, the minimum amount of which is Rs. 25 and the maximum amount is Rs. 100, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with both.

Subsection (2) provides an additional clause penalising the owner if he fails to exercise reasonable care and supervision to prevent cruelty offences. 

The proviso to this Subsection states that if an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty because he failed to undertake reasonable care and protection, he shall be liable to imprisonment and fine.

Sub-section (3) mentions those acts that are outside the scope of cruelty:

1. The dehorning of cattle or castration or branding or nose-roping of any animal if done in a prescribed manner, or
2. Destroying stray dogs in lethal chambers or by other prescribed methods; or
3. Exterminating or destroying any animal under the legal authority of any existing law; or
4. Any matter under Chapter IV (Experimentation on Animals); or
5. The commission of or abstaining from any activity in the course of destroying or preparing to destroy any animal for food for human consumption, unless such destruction or preparation caused the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to the animal.

Punishment for practising phooka or doom dev

The definition of phooka or doom dev has already been defined in Section 2(g) of the Act. This operation forms a type of animal cruelty and hence is penalised under the Act as amended in 1982 under Section 12. The Section states that a person would be liable under this Section in cases of:

1. Operating phooka or doom dev upon any cow or any such milch animal, or,
2. Performing any other operation, which includes injecting any substance, the effect of which would improve lactation, resulting in injury to the animal health, or, 
3. Permitting such operation to be performed upon such animal, the animal being in such person’s possession or under his control,

The punishment is a fine of Rs. 1000 or imprisonment for 2 years. The animal subjected to the operation must also be surrendered to the government. 

Killing of the suffering animals

Section 13 of this Act states the provisions related to killing an animal to relieve it from further suffering.

Sub-section (1) states that in a case where the animal owner is convicted of an offence under Section 11 and the court is satisfied that letting such an animal survive shall inflict more pain and suffering on it, then the Court shall lawfully direct the killing of such an animal and also assign a person for its execution. 

The person so assigned shall then carry out the execution as early as possible or cause such execution of the animal in his presence, taking care that the animal does not face any unreasonable suffering. 

The proviso mentions that such an order of execution shall only be made if the owner assents on this behalf or upon the evidence of a veterinary officer in the area.

Sub-section (2) provides that when any magistrate, commissioner of police or district superintendent of police has reason enough to believe that an offence under Section 11 has been committed, he may direct the immediate destruction of such an animal if he thinks that keeping the animal alive would be cruel.

Sub-section (3) says that any police officer of higher rank than that of a constable or any person authorised in this regard by the State Government who finds any diseased animal, or any severely injured animal, or an animal in such a physical state that he opines that it is not possible to remove such animal without cruelty may, in the absence of the owner or his refusal to consent in the animal’s destruction, shall then summon and consult the veterinary officer in charge of the area in which such animal is found. 

Suppose the veterinary officer certifies that the animal has a mortal or severe injury or is in such a physical condition that it would be cruel to keep it alive. In that case, the police officer or the authorised person, after obtaining a magisterial order, may destroy the injured animal or cause its destruction in the prescribed manner.

Sub-section (4) makes the magisterial order for the destruction of an animal non-appealable.

Experimenting on animals

Exception of certain acts

Though experimenting on animals is prohibited if it inflicts cruelty upon them, science and the advancement of mankind require certain experimentation to be done for the benefit of humans. For the same reason, the Act provides exceptional cases where experimentation is allowed. According to Section 14 of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall not impinge on the experimentation and operation of animals for the following purposes:

1. Advancement through the discovery of physiological knowledge, or
2. Knowledge which will help diminish the fatality rate, or
3. Knowledge that would alleviate the suffering, or
4. Knowledge would combat any disease in humans, animals, or plants.

Committee and Sub-committees for controlling and supervising experiments on animals

The Act punishes animal cruelty but allows certain kinds of experiments on animals for broader social interests. However, unregulated cruelty to animals under the name of experiments cannot occur. To ensure this, the Act provides for forming committees and subcommittees that would undertake the role of supervisors. 

According to Section 15, 

1. The Central Government may, on the advice of the Board, constitute a Committee if it considers it essential for controlling and supervising animal experiments at any time. The constitution is to be notified in the Official Gazette. 

Moreover, the Central Government could decide on the number of officials and non-officials appointed in the Committee.

1. The Central Government has the authority to nominate one of the Committee members as its Chairman.
2. The Committee has the power to regulate its procedure for performing its duties.
3. The Committee’s funds shall include Government grants provided to it time and again, along with the following made to it by any person-
   1. Contributions,
   2. Donations,
   3. Subscriptions,
   4. Bequests,
   5. Gifts.

Formation of sub-committees

The Act, in its Section 15A, provides for the constitution of sub-committees. Sub-section (1) states that the Committee formed under Sub-section (1) to Section 15 may, in turn, constitute several sub-committees as it deems fit for: 

1. The exercise of powers, or, 
2. For discharging the duties of the Committee, or, 
3. To inquire into any matter referred to them by the Committee, or, 
4. To report and advise the Committee on any matter that the Committee refers to them. 

Sub-section (2) mentions that the sub-committee shall consist solely of the Committee members.

Staff of the Committee

Section 16 gives power to the Committee to do the following, subject to the control of the Central Government:

1. To appoint such a necessary number of officers and employees for exercising its powers and performing its duties, and
2. To decide the remuneration, terms and conditions of the service of such employed officers and employees.

Duties and powers of the Committee

Similar to the Board, the Committee also has specific duties to perform. The primary duty of the Committee, as provided under Sub-section (1) to Section 17, is to take all the necessary measures to ensure that no animal is subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering:

1. Before performing any experiment on them,
2. During the performance of any experiment on them, and
3. After the performance of any experiment on them.

For this purpose, the Committee may make any necessary rules by notifying in the Indian Gazette, which, in its opinion, would be fit for the conduct of such experiments. 

Sub-section (1A) mentions the matters regarding which the rules may be made. The issues are as follows:

1. The registration of institutions and persons who carry on experiments on animals, 
2. The reports and other related information forwarded by such institutions and persons who carry on such experiments on animals to the Committee.

Sub-section (2) lists down the objects to secure which the Committee-made rules are to be designed:

1. Where the experiments are carried out in an institution, the responsibility of the experiment rests in the hands of the “person in charge of the institution”, and where the experiment is carried out outside of any institution by some individuals, such individuals possess the full responsibility of the experiments performed,
2. The experiments are to be conducted with due care and humanity. Experiments that involve operations are to be performed using anaesthetics of adequate power to prevent the animal from feeling pain,
3. If, in the course of experiments while being under the influence of anaesthetics, the animal is injured to such an extent that their recovery would include suffering, then such an animal is to be executed while being under the medication of anaesthetics,
4. Experiments on animals are to be avoided to the greatest possible extent. Alternatives of books, models, and films are to be adopted if they are enough for the teaching purposes, 
5. Experiments on larger animals are to be avoided whenever possible. If the same results can be achieved by experimenting on small laboratory animals, then the same must be undertaken, 
6. As much as it is viable, experiments are not to be conducted just for the sake of acquiring some manual skill,
7. The animals that are the subject for the execution of the experiments are to be correctly taken care of both before and after the conduct of the experiments,
8. Suitable records are to be maintained regarding the experiments conducted on animals.

Sub-section (3) states that the Committee is to be guided by the central government’s directions for making rules. The provision authorises the central government to provide such directions, which must be consistent with the committee’s objectives.

Sub-section (4) provides that the Committee-made rules are binding on every individual who performs experiments outside an institution and on persons in charge of such institutions where experiments are performed.

Other powers

Some residuary powers are included in the Act, which we will cover briefly. 

Section 18 provides for the power of entry and inspection. It states that the Committee has the power to allow any officer or any other person to inspect any institution or place where animal experiments are conducted and submit a report on it. 

The authorisation has to be given in writing. The purpose of such an inspection is to ensure that the rules made by the Committee are followed. 

The officer or person so authorised by the Committee has the power to:

1. Enter and inspect any institution or place where experiments on animals are conducted at a reasonable time, and,
2. Require any person to produce any record kept therein regarding such experiments.

Section 19 empowers the Committee to prohibit experiments on animals in certain situations. The section provides that if an officer or other such person, after undertaking such inspection as mentioned in Section 18 or otherwise, submits the report to the Committee and the Committee is then satisfied that the person or institution where the experiments on animals are being conducted are not complying with the rules made under Section 17, then the Committee may:

1. Restrain the person or institution from conducting the experiments on animals either for some time or for perpetuity, or, 
2. It may allow conducting experiments after imposing certain special conditions as it deems fit.

However, before making an order that affects either of the above-mentioned conditions, the Committee has to give the person or institution a chance to be heard regarding the matter. 

Penalties about the Committee

Section 20 enumerates the acts which would lead to penalties. The acts mentioned are:

1. Contravening any order made by the Committee under Section 19, or,
2. Committing a breach of any condition the Committee has imposed under Section 19.

If any person commits the above-mentioned acts, then the person shall be liable to be punished with a fine, the maximum amount of which would be Rs. 200. Where the contravention or breach has taken place in any institution, the person in charge of the institution would be deemed to be guilty of the offence. 

Using animals for performance

Exhibition and training

According to Section 21, the exhibit refers 

“to exhibit at any entertainment to which the public makes admission through purchasing of tickets and training means to train any animal for the purpose of such exhibition”.

In simple terms, exhibiting means displaying animals at any place of entertainment where public entry is through a ticket system. Training means training an animal for exhibition.

Accordingly, the terms exhibitor and trainer have corresponding meanings.

Restriction on exhibiting performing animals

According to Section 22, an animal can not be exhibited or trained by any person if-

1. That person is unregistered according to the provisions of this chapter;
2. The animal has been barred from being included in any performance by the Central Government through a notification in the Official Gazette.

Procedure of registration of those persons who want to exhibitor

The Act allows animals to be used for exhibition purposes. Still, the person who trains or exhibits the animals must be registered as an exhibitor under the Act.

Section 23 provides for the procedure of registration to be an exhibitor.

Subsection (1) of Section 23 states that any person who wishes to exhibit or train any performing animal shall make an application. The application must be made in the prescribed form to the prescribed authority and pay the prescribed fees. The exception is any person not entitled to be registered by a court order.

Sub-section (2) states that the following particulars are to be included in the application:

1. The details concerning the animal,
2. The general nature of the performances in which the animals are to be exhibited or for which they are to be trained.

This information will be entered into the register maintained by the appropriate authority.

Sub-section (3) states that every person whose name is mentioned in the register will be given a certificate of registration by the prescribed authority. The certificate will be in the prescribed form and contain all the details mentioned in the register.

Subsection (4) allows the register to be available for inspection at all reasonable times. With the payment of the prescribed fee, any person can obtain copies of the register or make extracts from it.

Subsection (5) allows the alteration of the particulars entered into the register. It states that a person whose name is entered in the register has the entitlement to make an application to alter the particulars related to him. When such a change has to be made, the previous certificate will be cancelled, and a new certificate will be issued.

Judicial power to prohibit or restrict the exhibition or training of any animal

Exhibitions or training, though allowed under the Act, cannot be unregulated. For the same reason, it is ensured that the person exhibiting or training is a registered exhibitor. Similarly, the judiciary intervenes if cruelty is meted out to an animal during exhibition or training. 

According to Sub-section (1) to Section 24, where any magistrate is satisfied, based on a written complaint made to it by a police officer or an authorised officer by the prescribed authority referred to in Section 23, that during the training or exhibition, any performing animal has undergone unnecessary pain or suffering and should be prohibited or allowed only subject to conditions, the court may issue an order against the defendant, prohibiting the training or exhibition.

Sub-section (2) says that any court making an order under this section is to immediately send a copy of the order to the prescribed authority by which the defendant is registered and shall cause the details of the order to be supported by the certificate held by the defendant. The defendant shall produce the same on being required by the court for endorsement purposes, and the prescribed authority shall input the particulars of the order in that register.

Power of entering premises

According to Sub-section (1) to Section 25, any person authorised in writing by the prescribed authority and any police officer, not below the rank of sub-inspector, may-

1. Enter and inspect any premises where any performing animals are being trained or exhibited or have been kept for such purpose, and any such animals found in there, at all reasonable times; and
2. Require any person whom the prescribed authority or the police officer has reason enough to believe is a trainer or exhibitor to produce his registration certificate.

Sub-section (2) states that no person or police officer shall be entitled to go on or behind the backstage during the public performance of the performing animals.

Offences about performing animals

According to Section 26, if a person does any of the below-mentioned acts, then he would be liable for committing an offence under the provisions of this chapter:

1. Exhibiting or training any unregistered animal for performance; or
2. When the person himself is registered under this Act, but he exhibits or trains any performing animal, in respect of which he is unregistered; or
3. Exhibiting or training a performing animal, or any animal which is barred from being used for this purpose as notified under clause (ii) of Section 22; or
4. Causing obstruction or willful delay to any person or police officer referred under Section 25 from exercising of power for entering and inspecting, or
5. Hiding any animal to avoid inspection; or
6. Failing to provide his registration certificate without reasonable cause, the person being registered under this Act; or
7. Applying for registration under this Act while not possessing the entitlement for such registration.

The person, if found guilty of any of these offences, shall be liable to pay a fine of an amount, the maximum of which would be Rs 500 or with imprisonment, the maximum term of which would be 3 months or both.

Exemptions

According to Section 27, the following are the exemptions to this Chapter-

1. Training of animals for bonafide military or police purposes or exhibition of animals trained for such purpose;
2. Any animals kept for educational or scientific exhibition in any zoological garden, association, or scientific society.

Other provisions

Killing for religious purposes

According to Section 28, the provisions of this act shall be inapplicable on the killing of any animal for any religious community.

For example, Goat slaughter during Kali Puja shall be out of the purview of this application.

Power of court to deprive person convicted of ownership of an animal

Section 29 is divided into six clauses:

Sub-section (1) gives authority to the court to order the forfeiture of the victim animal against which the offence was committed to the government in case the animal’s owner is found guilty of committing any offence under this Act. The forfeiture of the animal and any other suitable order regarding the disposal of the animal may be made by the court in addition to the usual punishment. 

Sub-section (2) states that such an order as mentioned in the previous subsection would not be passed unless it is proved that the owner is previously convicted, that the character of the owner is terrible or that the animal would be exposed to more cruelty if it were left with the owner.

Sub-section (3) authorises the court to order that the owner, being previously convicted under the Act, shall, perpetually or for a specified period, be forbidden from having the custody of any kind of animal or any mentioned species of animal as specified. 

Three conditions need to be met to make such an order as mentioned under subsection (3). The same are provided in sub-section (4) and are as follows:

1. There must be evidence of the previous conviction or regarding the owner’s character or the treatment of the animal, the animal being the one concerning the cruelty sentence.
2. The complaint of conviction of cruelty mentions that the complainant has requested the grant of the order, as mentioned earlier, against the animal owner, i.e., the accused,
3. The offence of conviction was committed in an area in which the law in force necessitated enforcing a licence to keep such an animal in respect of which the conviction happened.

Sub-section (5) denies the convicted person against whom an order under sub-section (3) has been made the right to have custody of an animal against the order. If such order is contravened, the convicted shall be punishable with a fine, which might extend to Rs. 100 or imprisonment, the maximum term of which might extend to three months, or with both.

Sub-section (6) provides the power of modification or rescindment of any order to the court, either by itself or on an application being made to it.

Presumption of guilt in some instances

According to Section 30, if any person is charged with the offence of committing a zoocide of a cow or goat or their progeny, in contravention to Section 11(1)(1), and it is evident that at the time of commission, he had the skin of such animal, then he shall be presumed guilty of killing the animal cruelly until and unless the contrary is proven.

Other powers

Power of search and seizure

Section 32 is divided into two parts.

Sub-section (1) states that a police officer, who is not less than the rank of a sub-inspector, or any other authorised person, the State Government has made the authorisation, has reason to believe that:

1. An offence under Section 11(1)(1) regarding an animal mentioned under Section 30:
   1. Is being committed, or, 
   2. Is about to be committed, or, 
   3. Has been committed in any place, or,
2. Any person who has in his possession the animal’s skin with the head attached,

Then, the police officer or the authorised person can enter and search such a place in which he has reason enough to believe that the skin is to be found. Moreover, he can seize such skin or any article which is used or is intended to be used for the commission of the offence.

Sub-section (2) provides that such officer or authorised person has reason to believe that phooka or doom dev or any such operation as mentioned in Section 12:

1. Has just been performed, or,
2. Is being performed, or,
3. Performed, 

On any animal within the jurisdiction of the officer or authorised person, then that officer or person may enter the place in which he has enough reason to believe that the animal is and may seize that animal and produce it to examine, which is to be done by the veterinarian officer in charge of the area of seizure of the animal.

Issue of search warrants

Section 33 mentions search warrants. It authorises the following persons to issue search warrants:

1. First class magistrate, or, 
2. Second class magistrate, or, 
3. Presidency magistrate, or, 
4. Sub-divisional magistrate, or,
5. Commissioner of police, or,
6. District superintendent of police,

The Section mentions that the authorities mentioned above, upon receiving written information and after making such appropriate necessary inquiry, have reason to believe that an offence under the Act of 1960:

1. Is being committed, or,
2. Is about to be committed, or,
3. Has been committed in any place,

Then, such authority may either enter and search the premises themselves or issue a warrant authorising any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, as mentioned in Section 32, to enter and search the premises.

Sub-section (2) applies to searches conducted under this Act and all the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, related to searching.

Power of seizure for examination

Section 34 mentions the general power of seizure for examination. It authorises a police officer above the rank of constable or any other State Government authorised person, having reason to believe that an offence under this Act:

1. Has been committed, or,
2. Is being committed, or,
3. Committed in respect of any animal,

He may take the animal in custody and present it for examination by the nearest magistrate or the prescribed veterinary officer if he thinks the circumstances justify it. Such authorised police officers or persons may also require the person in charge to accompany them to the place of examination while seizing the animal.

Treatment and care for the animals

Sub-section (1) to Section 35 of this Act authorises the State Government to appoint infirmaries to treat and care for the victim animals under this Act and may authorise the detention of any animal to be produced before a magistrate.

Sub-section (2) authorises the magistrate before the prosecution of an offence against the Act has been lodged to direct that the concerned animal be treated and taken care of by an infirmary until it recovers or to send it to a pinjrapole. 

Additionally, suppose the veterinary officer in charge of the area where the animal was traced or another authorised veterinary officer certifies that the injury cannot be cured or removed without cruelty. In that case, the animal is to be destroyed.

Sub-section (3) states that the animal which is sent to the infirmary for care and treatment is not to be released unless the magistrate directs for sending it to a pinjrapole or for its destruction, except when a discharge certificate is issued by the veterinary officer in charge of the area in which the infirmary is located or other such authorised veterinary officer.

Sub-section (4) requires the owner to pay the transportation cost incurred while sending the animal to an infirmary or pinjrapole, along with its maintenance and treatment in such an infirmary, as per the scale of rates prescribed by the district magistrate or by the Commissioner of Police in case of the presidency-towns.

The proviso mentions that the Magistrate is to make an order waiving the payment of the charge for the animal’s treatment in case the animal’s owner is penurious.

Sub-section (5) provides that such an amount to be paid by an animal owner may be recovered in a resembling manner as an arrear of land revenue.

Sub-section (6) states that if the animal owner does not cooperate in removing the animal within the specified time as prescribed by the Magistrate, then the Magistrate may direct for such selling, and the sale proceeds are to be applied to recover the abovementioned costs.

Lastly, sub-section (7) mentions that if any surplus is acquired from the sales proceeds, it shall be paid to the owner on an application he made within 2 months from the sale date.

Limiting prosecutions

According to Section 36, no prosecution can be instituted for an offence committed under this act after three months have passed from the offence’s date.

Landmark cases

After discussing the Act in detail, we will also discuss a few important judgments to enhance our understanding of it. 

Animal Welfare of India vs. A. Nagaraja and ors (2014)

Background

In May 2014, the Supreme Court, in Animal Welfare of India vs. A. Nagaraja and Ors (2014), banned bulls in Jallikattu events in Tamil Nadu. 

This is one of the landmark cases of animal cruelty. But before we get into the case details, we need to know what Jallikattu is and why it is considered cruelty against animals. 

Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport held during the Pongal festival in Tamil Nadu. The native breeds of bulls are released into crowds and the participants attempt to grab the large hump on the back of the bull and they try to hang on to it while the bull attempts to escape. 

The Tamil Nadu government contended that this sport is a part of their culture and promotes the breeding of the native bulls, ensuring their survival. The primary legislation in this case is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Facts

One of the issues, in this case, was the challenge by the division bench of Madras High Court to the validity of the Tamil Nadu Registration of the Jallikattu Act, 2009 and a few writ petitions that were filed challenging the validity of the Ministry of Environment and Forests dated July 11, 2011. Another is the challenge to the judgement of the Bombay High Court via the Ministry of Environment and Forests Notification.

The fight against Jallikattu started in 2006 when a plea arising from concerns about cruelty was presented to the Madras High Court. At first, the single bench judge of the Madras High Court banned the Jallikattu practice. Then, a subsequent appeal was made to the Division Bench, where this judgment was reversed, and Jallikattu was allowed with certain conditions.

The Animal Welfare Board of India contended that the practices of Jallikattu, Bull or Bullock-cart races, violated the provisions of the Act of 1960, in particular Sections 3, 11(1)(a), 11(1)(m) and 22 of the Act. The Animal Welfare Board also issued a notification prohibiting bulls from the category of “performing animals” as defined under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. 

It also contended that the Ministry of Environment and Forests notification, dated July 11, 2011, justified banning the exhibition and training of bulls as performing animals. It also contended that the Tamil Nadu Registration of the Jallikattu Act, 2009, was contrary to the Act of 1960. 

Further, it was contended that the bulls are forced to participate in such activities and are subjected to “considerable pain and suffering,” which violated not only the provisions of the Act of 1960 but also Articles 51A(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Submitting the same, they requested to ban the exhibition and training of bulls as performing animals.

The organisers of Jallikattu and Bullock-cart races had contended that such practices are part of their tradition. This custom is executed with extreme care and protection so that the bullocks are not subjected to injury or pain. 

It was also mentioned that such events produce revenue for the state while providing enjoyment to the participants. The district collector, police officials, and other such authorities remain present to see if any legislation is prohibited. 

The State of Tamil Nadu also stated that care is taken to ensure that the bulls are not subjected to cruelty and that the bulls used in such activities are specifically identified, trained, and nourished. The sports events and the bulls’ owners spend considerable money on their training, maintenance, and upkeep. The State mentioned that a complete ban on such activities would be against the public interest.

However, the Jallikattu practice continued without regard to the mentioned conditions. On the other hand, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court affirmed the Ministry of Environment and Forests notification dated July 11, 2011 and the corrigendum by the Government of Maharashtra. 

Subsequently, on March 12, 2012, it banned all activities related to Bullock-cart races, games, exhibitions, training, and similar activities. 

Issues

Two issues that were framed were:

1. Was there a violation of the Act of 1960 and the provisions of the Constitution of India by the Jallikattu-related events?
2. Whether the Act of 1960 contradict the Tamil Nadu Regulation of the Jallikattu Act?

Judgement

The Supreme Court affirmed the contentions of the Animal Welfare Board. It held that the practice of Jallikattu, Bullock-cart races and other similar activities are violative of Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of the Act of 1960. 

It also upheld the Central Government’s notification dated July 11, 2011, prohibiting the use of bulls in these activities.

The Court also highlighted that the rights of bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act of 1960 and Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h) cannot be infringed with exceptions as to Sections 11(3) and 28 of the Act of 1960.

Kennel Club of India vs. Union of India (2013)

The Kennel Club of India vs. The Union of India (2013) concerns dog mutilation. It highlighted that dog owners cannot be accused of mutilating dogs in an unnecessarily cruel manner. For that, the Madras High Court also gave the example of police personnel allowing ear cropping or tail docking for police department dogs.

Facts

The Kennel Club of India (KCI) is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It is also recognised by the Federation of Cyrologique International (FCI), the most popular and supreme body dealing with dog breeds internationally. This body maintains the breed standards and decreases all recognised dog breeds. KCI has clubs throughout India, which are also registered as societies. 

These clubs are affiliated with KCI, which is affiliated with FCI. These clubs conduct dog shows with KCI’s approval. KCI has stated that, on average, about 120 dog shows are held every year throughout India.

The Veterinary Council of India (VCI) sent a notice on November 11, 2011 to KCI stating that the Animal Welfare Board of India has informed them that puppies belonging to certain breeds are subjected to avoidable and unnecessary cruel cosmetic surgeries by practising veterinary surgeons on the request of the owners which is against the prevailing law. It was further added in the notice that the puppies go through immense pain, suffering and discomfort due to such cruel procedures. 

The notice also mentions that these procedures lead to mutilation and amount to cruelty, as per the Act of 1960, and thus, is a punishable offence. The VCI was advised to inform the veterinarians to stop the procedures with immediate effect. If they fail to comply with it, then strict action against those practitioners would be taken by the Board to stop the procedures.

KCI filed the present petition asking to quash the November 11, 2011, notice.

The Animal Board filed a counter affidavit stating that ear cropping and tail docking amount to cruelty under Section 11 of the Act. Further, it stated that these practices have been banned by medical associations worldwide.

Judgement

The meaning of mutilation is not defined under the Act of 1960. Hence, the High Court of Madras considered the meaning of “mutilate” and “mutilation” from sources like Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary and Advanced Law Lexican of P. Ramanathan Iyer. 

The word “mutilation” has been used in Section 11(1)(l), which states,

“mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or any other unnecessarily cruel manner;”

The Madras High Court also considered the exceptions under Section 11(3) and reading those in the light of the submissions made by the petitioner, it clarified that unless the Central Government issues any direction as per its rule-making power under Section 38, ear cropping and tail docking cannot be prevented terming as cruelty.

Gauri Maulekhi vs. Union of India (2010)

Facts

The case of Gauri Maulekhi vs. Union of India (2010) concerns the illegal export of cattle and buffaloes from India to Nepal for the Gadhimai festival. This festival, celebrated every five years, is a tradition in which several animals, such as buffaloes, rats, goats, pigs, birds, etc., are sacrificed. 

This animal sacrifice in the Gadhimai festival is considered to be one of the world’s largest. To perform it, huge numbers of animals are exported from India to Nepal.

Judgement 

In 2014, before the Gadhimai festival, the Supreme Court, vide an order dated October 17, 2014, directed the Central Government of India to ensure that no cattle or buffaloes are transported illegally to Nepal. Such power is conferred to the Central Government of India under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 

The Supreme Court also highlighted Section 11(3)(e) of the Act and opined that unnecessary pain and suffering cannot be inflicted on animals to satisfy human desire. The Supreme Court also stated that sacrificing animals can not be regarded as a means to appease the Gods. 

The Court ordered that the Central Government prevent any illicit export of cows or buffaloes to Nepal.

People for Ethical Treatment of Animals vs. Union of India (2004)

The Bollywood film industry frequently incorporates animals into their plots. Before the development of special effects, and presently, when these effects failed to yield the desired results, the filmmakers tended to use real animals for the movie.

In this case, the Bombay High Court ruled that a “No Objection Certificate” from the Animal Welfare Board of India is necessary if a movie intends to use animals in its plot..

Facts

Using the authority granted by the Act of 1960, the Central Government created the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules 2001. The petitioner contended that using animals in commercial advertisements and cinematograph films violated the provisions under the Rules.

The petitioner had requested two reliefs in their petition:

1. Issue of appropriate writs or directions instructing the Union of India to enforce the Rules of 2001, and
2. Issue of appropriate writs or directions that would instruct the Censor Board of India to obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the Animal Welfare Board of India, which would certify that the film has been made complying with the Rules of 2001 before such film is released for the public.

Judgement

The Bombay High Court, considering the various provisions of the Rules of 2001 and to ensure compliance with the Act of 1960, formulated specific directions:

1. In those cases where an animal has been used in the shooting of a film, the Central Board of Film Certification, at the time of providing the certificate for public exhibition to the applicant, shall require the applicant to produce a certificate from the Animal Welfare Board of India which certifies that the provisions of the Rules of 2001 have been complied with. 

When the applicant submits the application for certification of a film to be publicly exhibited, it shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Animal Welfare Board before the film is certified for public exhibition.

1. The Animal Welfare Board of India shall process the applications for the grant of a certificate certifying compliance with the Rules of 2001 expeditiously within two weeks of the submission of the application containing all necessary particulars and information.
2. In an affidavit, the Board said that, in accepting certification applications, it would require that each producer must provide a declaration stating that no animal cruelty occurred during the production of a film made in India and that all requirements outlined in Rules 2001 have been met. 

N.R. Nair and ors vs. Union of India and ors (2001)

The case of N.R. Nair and ors vs. Union of India and ors (2001) excluded certain animals from being exhibited or trained as performing animals.

Facts

The appeal was filed as a special leave of absence from the Kerala High Court’s ruling on the legality of Section 22 of the Act and the notification issued under the same section prohibiting the training or exhibition of specific animals, including tigers, panthers, lions, bears, and monkeys.

The Indian Circus Federation later challenged the notification in the Delhi High Court after it was released on March 2, 1991. A later corrigendum that also excluded dogs was issued. 

On August 21, 1997, a High Court Division Bench ordered the government to give the notification another look. A committee was established, and a thorough report was turned in. However, a notice under Section 22 forbade the training and display of tigers, panthers, lions, bears, and monkeys was issued on October 14, 1998.

The Kerala High Court heard a challenge to this notification. In a June 6, 2000, ruling, the Kerala High Court affirmed the notification’s legality. It declared that judicial review could not be used to assess the government’s decision’s correctness, particularly when it was established that no pertinent or irrelevant facts had been overlooked. Consequently, the Supreme Court received appeals.

Judgement 

The Supreme Court held that circus animals are typically trained. The government is in charge of determining whether the training and display of the animals in those circuses cause them unnecessary pain or suffering, taking into account the available evidence as well as other considerations.

The most critical factor is the animal’s well-being. Only when the government is convinced that an animal is subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering during training or exhibition does it issue a notification under Section 22(ii). The issuance of such a notification is contingent upon the presence of pain and suffering. 

Last but not least, the Supreme Court maintained the High Court’s ruling that the courts cannot use judicial review to determine whether the government’s decision to issue the notification was correct. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the government did not act carelessly or disregard pertinent information.

The Supreme Court decided that the notification was within the Act’s purview after considering that a committee was established, that the committee reviewed all relevant evidence and that the High Court also examined the documents demonstrating the animals’ training methods. 

Amendments and recent developments on animal cruelty 

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill 2022

The draft of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Amendment) Bill, 2022, which would amend the 1960 Act, was made public by a notice by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry, and Dairying, along with the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, on November 21, 2022.

Proposed Amendments to the Act

The Bill of 2022 amended specific provisions and added particular clauses. The changes suggested were as follows:

1. Section 11 was amended to increase the severity of the punishment. The unaltered section stipulated that a first offence would result in a fine of at least Rs. 10 and a maximum of Rs. 50, while a second or subsequent offence within three years would result in a fine of at least Rs. 25 and a maximum of Rs. 100 or imprisonment for up to three months, or both. 

The amended section stipulated that a first offence would carry a minimum fine of Rs. 1000 and a maximum fine of Rs. 5000, while a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the first offence would carry a minimum fine of Rs. 3000 and a maximum fine of Rs. 10,000, imprisonment for a term extendable to three years, or both.

1. Under Section 20, the quantum of punishment has been increased from a fine of Rs. 200 to Rs. 5000.

Ongoing debate on the Bill

Governments worldwide have enforced stricter laws to reduce instances of animal abuse. Due to certain issues with the 1960 Act in India, the Bill of 2022 was suggested.

Serious offences like extreme cruelty and animal killing only carry a fine and imprisonment, even though the Bill has increased the sentences and added new crimes. This allows the criminals to pay a fine and get away with it.  

Another argument is that the Bill disproportionately impacts groups like snake charmers and animal entertainers. Additionally, the Bill ignores more significant problems like animal extinction brought on by climate change and environmental harm.

Even though the Bill has been crucial in advancing animal protection, more extensive regulations are required to address more general concerns about animal abuse. 

Conclusion

The discussed Act was the first law addressing animal abuse and protecting animals. It offered a starting point for advancing animal welfare and safeguarding animals against mistreatment and disregard. By establishing stringent guidelines to guarantee that no animal is subjected to cruelty, the Act took a significant step in protecting animal life.

The Act establishes the Animal Welfare Board, which ensures that all necessary steps are taken to ensure the safety and protection of animals. This includes ensuring that animals are trained and displayed safely and legally and supporting animal welfare organisations to advance animal welfare.

The Parliament passed the Wildlife Protection Act, a more specialised law about preserving wild animals within the borders, in 1972. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Does the Act of 1960 apply to street animals?

Yes, as the Preamble uses the term “animals”, it is inferred that the Act applies to all animals, including stray or street animals. Any act of cruelty towards street animals is punishable under the Act.

Can animals be used in circuses as per the Act?

Yes, animals can be involved in circus activities provided that they are not subjected to cruelty. The Animal Welfare Board of India has approved such exhibition and training under Section 9, and the Central Government has not expressly excluded such animals from being exhibited or trained via Gazette notification under Section 22.

Are there any exemptions to the Act?

The Act exempts the following:

1. Experiments on animals for advancement by discovery of physiological knowledge or any knowledge that would be useful in saving or extending life period or reducing suffering or fighting any disease,
2. Training and exhibiting of animals for bona fide military or police purposes,
3. Animals are kept in zoological gardens, the principal object being an exhibition of animals for educational or scientific purposes,
4. Killing of animals for religious purposes.

References 

• https://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Abha-and-Adrija-Animal-Cruelty-.pdf 
• https://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/585735/1/PD_06_05031954_15_p1785_p1809_3.pdf 
• https://awbi.gov.in/ 
• https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/59.-Vaibhav-Dwivedi-1.pdf

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack