The Delhi High Court, on a Friday, sent notifications to the Central government, the Animal Welfare Board, the Delhi government, and the Delhi Police in response to a petition submitted by the renowned Indian cricketer Kapil Dev. In his plea, Kapil Dev is requesting more stringent regulations against the mistreatment of animals. 

A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula, has instructed these authorities to provide their responses within a four-week period.

Kapil Dev, along with his wife Romi Dev and animal rights activist Anjali Gopalan, have jointly filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition in court. Their petition is aimed at challenging certain provisions within the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that permit the 'destruction' of stray dogs through lethal chambers and the 'extermination/ destruction of any animal under the authority of any law. The petitioners argue that Sections 11(1), 11(3)(b), and 11(3)(c) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, along with Sections 428 (relating to mischief by killing or maiming an animal of the value of ten rupees) and 429 (pertaining to mischief by killing or maiming cattle or any animal of the value of fifty rupees) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), are in violation of the constitution. Section 11 of the law stipulates that individuals who engage in cruelty towards animals can face fines. For the first offense, the fine varies from ₹10 to ₹50, and for subsequent offenses, it ranges from ₹25 to ₹100. Alternatively, there is a provision for imprisonment for a period of three months, or a combination of fines and imprisonment.

The argument put forth is that this provision lacks a significant deterrent effect and is deemed manifestly arbitrary. It is criticized for trivializing the value of animal life and being insufficient to address the seriousness of brutality, torture, and crimes committed against animals in the country. The contention is that the penalties specified in the law do not adequately discourage or penalize those who engage in such acts of cruelty, which may result in severe harm to animals.

The plea regarding the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) argues that these provisions establish an unreasonable classification between two categories of offenses related to mischief by killing or maiming animals. This classification is based on the commercial value of the animal involved

The plea argues that the existing legal framework is inconsistent in its treatment of offenses related to the killing or maiming of animals, and it creates an unjust differentiation. For instance, when it comes to the serious offense of killing or maiming an animal worth ten rupees, the punishment is imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. However, if the same offense involves the killing or maiming of cattle or an animal valued at 50 rupees, the penalty increases to imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both. This disparity in punishment for the same gruesome act based on the commercial or utility value of the animal is considered entirely unreasonable and arbitrary by the plea.