Today's blog will be a win win blog for animals and animal activist, who raise their voice for animals. Today we will mention 7 landmark cases down the line which have molded law for the benefit of animal and environmental welfare.
Landmark cases
CASE 3 -
Near Shivaji College,
Landmark cases
While some people seem to think they can treat animals any
way they please, the law of the land has told us otherwise. SGACC brings you a list of orders passed by the country’s
courts of law. These orders either mitigated or put an end to the
suffering of animals:
So, now without any delay lets jump into our 1st case from the list:
CASE 1 -
In the
year of 2006, Bombay high court passed important ruling according to which any
film maker willing to use any animal in their films need to obtain “No
objection certificate” from the Animal Welfare Board of India stating that the
provisions of the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 have been duly
met. This law helped to control exploitation of animals in the name of
entertainment.
CASE 2 -
Consumer
Court Delhi Ruled this ruling in favor of a complainant in consumer forum who
was bared to use lift with his pet by the society, because of the lame excuse
given by the society authority that, if dog uses the lift it will spread
diseases, but with great excellence of judgment the court gave relief to the
pet owners as a consumer of co-housing society he can use the facilities with
the pet. Only thing pet should be vaccinated and recognized by kennel club of
India License.
CASE 3 -
Supreme
Court of India gave direction to food and cosmetic companies to mention the
identification of ingredients involved in making whether it is vegetarian or
non vegetarian and for that Red circle is dedicated for non vegetarian where as
to make vegetarian identical green
circle is Made.
CASE 4 -
Supreme Court of India laid down the judgment in the case held
In the state of Uttar Pradesh, in a
case where goats were found to be transported for slaughter in a cruel manner
(they were tightly bound to each other, which was against the provisions of the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960), an FIR was filed against the
owner. However, the UP High Court returned custody of the animals to the owner
while the matter was under litigation. On appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
declared that the animals were supposed to be confiscated from the owner and
housed in a gaushala, under the care of the state government who was
given their charge for the duration of the case. With this ruling, the Court
made it amply clear that once an animal was removed from a person’s care on
grounds of cruelty to his/her charge, the animal would not be returned until
the case was resolved.
CASE 5 -
- In 2014, the Hon’be Supreme Court banned the illegal transport of cattle to Nepal for the Gadhimai festival, which played an important role in bringing down the number of animals sacrificed that year. Prior to this, the Sahastra Seema Bal worked with the petitioner to draft a set of regulations related to animal markets, cattle markets and creating infrastructure for cattle, thus creating a set of recommendations that the court certified. In passing the order, the Supreme Court declared that these recommendations would have to be adopted.
CASE 6 -
The Kerala High Court upheld a
notification by the Ministry of Environment and Forests stating that bears,
monkeys, tigers, panthers and lions shall not be exhibited or trained as
performing animals. When the notification was challenged in the Supreme Court,
the court declared that animals suffer cruelty as they are abused and caged to
make them perform, and therefore, this contravenes the PCA Act, 1960. It also
dismissed the argument that the petitioners’ right to carry out any trade
or business under article 19(g) of the Indian Constitution was violated as
those activities that caused pain and suffering to the aforementioned animals
would not be allowed.
CASE 7 -
When the Supreme Court banned the
practice of Jallikattu in 2014, it alluded to various sections of the
PCA Act, 1960, which addresses unnecessary suffering of animals. Alluding to
Section 3 and Section 11, the Hon’ble Court declared that all animal fights
incited by humans are illegal, even those carried out under the guise of
tradition and culture. The Court also listed various recommendations, among
them an overhaul of the penalties and punishments in the PCA Act, 1960, so as
to allow it to function effectively as a deterrent in cases related to animal
cruelty.
