Overcrowding Of Cattle In Congested Spaces Amounts To Animal Cruelty: Tripura High Court Issues Directions
The High Court held that conditions such as overcrowding, lack of food, medication, or proper shelter fall within the definition of cruelty under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and directed authorities to facilitate the transportation of rescued cattle to ensure their welfare.
The Tripura High Court has held that overcrowding of cattle in limited space, as well as failure to provide adequate food, medication, and shelter, amounts to cruelty within the meaning of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and that authorities must act to ensure their proper care and protection.
The Court was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the State authorities to issue transit permits and facilitate the transportation of rescued cattle from the State of Tripura to the petitioner’s gaushala in Jharkhand.
A Bench of Justice Dr T. Amarnath Goud observed: “In the event if there is surplus of cattle in limited apace and overcrowded/congested, it also amounts to cruelty. Again, if proper food, medication and shelter is not provided, the same comes within the purview of cruelty”
Advocate H. Pandeya represented the appellant, while Deputy Solicitor General B. Majumder appeared for the Union of India.
Background
The petitioner, an animal welfare organisation operating multiple gaushalas across the country, approached the Court seeking issuance of transit permits for transportation of approximately 1800 cattle rescued from illegal slaughterhouses and trafficking activities in Tripura to its gaushala in Jharkhand.
It was contended by the petitioner that although permissions had earlier been granted by the State for the transportation of cattle, subsequent applications remained unaddressed. The petitioner submitted that a large number of cattle were being kept in difficult conditions due to fodder shortage and risk of smuggling, and that it was willing to transport and maintain the cattle in compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978.
The State, opposing the petition, contended that the Memorandum of Agreement between the parties had expired and had not been renewed, and therefore, no further permissions could be granted. It was further submitted that there was no shortage of fodder and that adequate care was being taken for the welfare of the cattle, and that an expert committee had inspected the facilities and found no deficiencies warranting the grant of permission.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, particularly Sections 2 and 11, which define “animal” and enumerate acts constituting cruelty, including starving, overloading, confining animals in insufficient space, and failure to provide adequate food, drink, or shelter.
The Court emphasised that cruelty is not confined to physical abuse but extends to conditions in which animals are kept. It held: “In the event that the cattle are shifted or transported from one place to another and if during transportation the cattle are overcrowded in a truck/transport vehicle, then also it amounts to cruelty under the statute.”
The Court further observed: “for any reason, if there is any stoppage for an undue period and for prolonged hours by any authority or any officers, it is needless to say, the same amounts to cruelty.”
The Court noted that the petitioner had been engaged in the rescue and care of cattle across the country and had earlier been granted permission by the State for transportation. It held that mere expiry of a Memorandum of Understanding could not be a valid ground to deny permission when the welfare of animals was at stake and no statutory provision prohibited such transportation.
The Court also took note of the prevailing conditions in the State, including instances of cattle smuggling across international borders, and emphasised the need for effective protection and rehabilitation of rescued animals.
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547, the Court reiterated: “Court has also a duty under the doctrine of parents patriae to take care of the rights of animals, since they are unable to take care of themselves as against human beings.”
Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that welfare legislation, such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, must be interpreted liberally to ensure protection of animals and that authorities cannot rely on administrative constraints to defeat the object of such legislation.
Conclusion
The High Court held that in the interest of welfare, protection, and proper care of cattle, the petitioner was entitled to transport the animals from Tripura to its gaushala in Jharkhand.
Accordingly, the Court directed the State authorities to issue transit permits and to facilitate safe and unobstructed transportation of the cattle, ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the relevant Rules.
Cause Title: Dhyan Foundation Goushala v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioner: H. Pandeya, S. Agarwal, A. Acharjee, Advocates
Respondents: B. Majumder, Deputy Solicitor General, M. Debbarma, Additional Government Advocate
