On Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Rules 2017 Supreme Court says, Rules Contradicts Section – Scandal of Animal Prevention Act, discrepancy in rules, they allow animals to be taken away even before punishment


The next hearing in the Supreme Court in the Animal Prevention Act 2017 will be held next week (symbolic photo)

Special things

  • SC said, we are worried about the seizure of animals
  • Asked the center, what are you going to do about the rules
  • Supreme Court to hold next hearing in the case next week

new Delhi:

The use of forcible transport of animals in possession of that vehicle and 2017 rules for sending animals to cowsheds or cow shelters In the case of challenging the Animal Prevention Act 2017, the Chief Justice (CJI) has said that your law allows the animal to be taken before it is firmly believed. The Supreme Court said that there is a difference between sales and confiscation. When sales occur, income is earned. The animals are worried about the seizure and the animal is being taken from the real owner. The Buffalo Traders Association has challenged the rule made in 2017.

Also read

SC hearing on Kisan agitation: CJI said – Agricultural law on center hold, or we will ban

The CJI has asked the central government what you are going to do about the rules, we told you last time that the rules are inconsistent with the sections. Animals are the source of livelihood of the people. This section is clear that animals can be taken only after being convicted. The SC said that your rules allow animals to be taken away before punishment. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta said that the petitioner is confused.
An animal subject to cruelty may not be allowed to be kept with the person. In case of any confiscation, the party may approach the court for custody. A detailed reply has been filed in this matter, on which the CJI said that we will consider the answer, the hearing will be held next week.

Petition to the Supreme Court seeking the declaration of those arrested during the Emergency as freedom fighters

Significantly, in the last hearing, the SC had raised the question raised on the notification of the Central Government in this matter. CJI SA Bobde had said that many animals are the source of livelihood of many people except dogs and cats, you cannot take them away like this. It is against Section 29, your rules are contradictory. Did that he can stop these rules. ASG Jayant Sood, on behalf of the central government, sought time to file an additional affidavit. The Supreme Court is hearing a petition by the Buffalo Traders Welfare Association challenging the validity of the 2017 notification in which Authorities have been allowed to seize the vehicles used to transport the cattle and send the animals to the ‘Gaushala’ (cow shelter home). In July 2019, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central Government seeking an answer. A bench of CJI SA Bobde and Justice BR Gavai issued a notice to the Center on the plea claiming that such a notification went beyond the provisions of the Basic Law, Prevention of Cruelty Act, 1960. The petitioners’ association of animal traders in Delhi is represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde and Advocate Sanobar Ali Qureshi, in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Case Property and Care of Animals notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on May 23, 2017 The Maintenance) Rules, 2017 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 have been demanded to be declared unconstitutional and illegal.

SC asked the question, ‘How will the forest officer without arms implement the law and order of the forest’

The SC said that this rule is contrary to the law, if the government does not remove the provisions then the court can stop it. However, the court postponed the case for January 11 at the request of the government’s counsel. The Chief Justice had said that we understand one thing. Animals, not pets, are a source of livelihood for people. You (the government) cannot catch them before arresting them. Therefore the provisions are opposite. You remove it or we will remove it. Counsel for the center said that the government has notified the rules and this is evidence on the record to prevent cruelty on animals. The Chief Justice said that amend the law, the sections are very clear. A person can lose his animal if found guilty. The rule cannot be contrary to law.


Central Vista project gets green signal from Supreme Court


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here