Shweta Sunil Sharma
Recently, a diabolic act reported from the State of Kerela, has sparked widespread anguish and resentment amongst people. A pregnant elephant was allegedly given a pineapple stuffed with explosives by some locals. As the fruit exploded in her mouth, the elephant walked for days, in pain, and finally succumbed to the injuries, standing in a river. As this incident attracted public attention, a similar incident, which had also occurred in Kerala some time earlier, was also unearthed; wherein it is suspected that another elephant had been killed in similar fashion.
There would be thousands of more cases related to cruelty inflicted upon animals which are either underreported or are totally missed out of public glare. Point of urgent public concern is that elephants are on path of extinction. Their population in the world is at a critical point. Asian elephants have already been listed as ‘endangered’ by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) as their numbers have plummeted by at least 50% over the last three generations.
India has declared Indian elephant as the “National Heritage Animal”, which is provided the highest degree of legal protection, by listing it in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Since the elephant killed in Kerela was wild and not domesticated, the perpetrators will have to be dealt with, under the said Act. The Act provides for protection of wild animals, plants and birds; and has established schedules of protected plants and animal species and their harvesting and hunting, respectively has largely been outlawed. ‘Hunting’ has been given a broad definition under Section 2(16) of the said Act, to cover all acts of killing, injuring, or capturing a captive or wild animal and every attempt to do so. Therefore, as per Section 51 of the Act, if the offenders involved in the killing of the elephant are found to be first time offenders, the maximum punishment which they can face is 7 years of imprisonment and a fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees; and in case it is second or a subsequent offence, the maximum punishment is 7 years of imprisonment and fine which shall not be less than twenty- five thousand rupees.
Now, talking about domestic animals. It is not just elephants; dogs, cows etc. fall prey to animal cruelty every other day. There are owners inflicting harm on their pets, there are people inflicting unnecessary harm on stray animals. For dealing with cruelty towards animals, we have a specific legislation called, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The objective of the said enactment is to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. Now, a question may pop up in one’s mind that despite such concerted efforts on the part of the legislators, why is the country witnessing an increase in cases related to cruelty on animals. Let us try to find an answer to this question.
Section 11 of the Act covers a wide range of activities which amount to animal cruelty. To name a few, animal cruelty includes beating, kicking, over-riding, overloading any animal; being the owner, failing to provide such animal sufficient food, drink or shelter; without reasonable cause, abandoning any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst; mutilating or killing any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner etc. Section 11(1) prescribes punishment for treating animals with cruelty. If a person is a first time offender, the maximum punishment he shall face is a fine of ’50 rupees’. In case of second or subsequent offence, committed within 3years of the previous offence, the offender shall be punished with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend to hundred rupees or with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with both.
Indeed, the ones found guilty of treating animals with cruelty, deserve much stricter punishment than what is provided for under Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The meagre amount of fine is one of the reasons why people don’t consider treating animals with cruelty as a serious offence.
Now, let me throw light at the unfair, discriminatory and antiquated law prevailing in our country. Under Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a person can undergo imprisonment up to 2 years for killing or maiming a pet animal of the value of ten rupees or upwards, and under Section 429 of IPC, for the same offence, a person can undergo imprisonment up to 5 years, if the pet was worth fifty rupees or more. The IPC does not specifically recognise offences against animals. Crimes like killing or maiming an animal fall under category of “Offences against property of people” and this too excludes stray dogs as they are not recognised as “assets”. Killing a stray dog, without any reasonable cause, entails a fine up to rupees fifty only under Section 11 of prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Why the discrimination? Just because an animal does not have a human caretaker, does not mean that its life holds no importance. The undeniable truth is that since long, animal rights and sufferings did not receive much attention from the authorities and general public. This anomaly in law also came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through a petition filed by an animal rights group in the year 2016. The bench issued a notice to the Centre seeking reply on the matter of prescribing harsher punishments for cruelty to animals.
Recently, we have witnessed a positive shift in the trend. The Indian Judiciary has shifted its focus from anthropocentric approach to eco-centric approach. It is pertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court of India, in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Nagaraja and Ors. inter alia extended Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ( Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to animals. The Court observed that Article 21, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance to the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. In 2019, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of Karnail Singh and Ors. V. State of Haryana recognised all animals in the animal kingdom including avian and aquatic species as legal entities, having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. All citizens of Haryana were declared persons in loco parentis (in place of a parent) as the human face for welfare/ protection of animals.
The earth as much belongs to animals as it belongs to humans. Article 51A (g) of the Indian Constitution enjoins upon every citizen of India, the fundamental duty to have compassion for all living creatures and not just humans. Mass awareness related to animal rights has become necessary now. Many people, no longer, possess the feeling of empathy towards animals. It is also important that we do not become mute spectators of incidents of cruelty to animals. How many of us raise our voice, when we see someone hurling stones, unnecessarily, at stray dogs or cows?
There is a dire need to introduce stricter punishments for cruelty to animals, without any distinction between pet and stray animals. Stricter punishments will create a deterrent effect in the minds of people and this would go a long way in reducing/ minimising the incidents of cruelty to animals. People, keeping in mind the potential harm that may come their way, will be deterred from even thinking of inflicting unnecessary pain or harm on animals.
(The author is Final year LLB Student at Law School, University of Jammu)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel
