Kapil Dev, the renowned Indian cricketer, along with his wife, has taken legal action by approaching the Delhi High Court to challenge specific sections of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. These challenged provisions pertain to the use of lethal chambers for the disposal of stray dogs and the authorization for the extermination or elimination of any animal under the jurisdiction of existing laws.

The petition was presented for a hearing before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula. The bench granted the petitioners' legal representative additional time to submit specific legal judgments as part of their case.

Kapil Dev, along with his wife Romi Dev, and animal rights activist Anjali Gopalan, asserted that their petition was prompted by recurring cases of inhumane treatment inflicted upon animals, which exposed the most savage and merciless aspects of humanity. They also criticized the inadequate and ineffective response of both the legal system and law enforcement agencies in addressing these issues.

The petition contested section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, arguing that it lacked sufficient deterrence and was inherently arbitrary. This was because it diminished the value of life for animals and failed to grant them a substantial existence. The petition contended that the act trivialized actions such as mutilation and killing of animals by imposing penalties of less than Rs 10, which appeared to mock the seriousness of these offenses and their consequences.

Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act addresses the issue of cruelty towards animals and prescribes penalties for such offenses. For a first offense, the fine is set at no less than Rs 10 but can go up to Rs 50. In cases of a second or subsequent offense committed within three years of the previous one, the penalty involves a fine of no less than Rs 25 but can extend up to Rs 100, and there is also the possibility of imprisonment for a maximum period of three months, or both, as part of the punishment.

The petition argues that Section 11 of the PCA Act is additionally unjust and irrational due to the exceptions outlined in Section 11(3)(b) (allowing cruelty to animals for the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers) and Section 11(3)(c) (permitting the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of existing laws). These exceptions, according to the plea, undermine the fairness and reasonableness of the law by permitting acts of cruelty in specific circumstances, which the petitioners find objectionable.

The petition has further challenged sections 428 (relating to mischief by killing or maiming animals of the value of ten rupees) and 429 (concerning mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners argue that these sections reflect a form of speciesism, implying a lack of moral worth or value in animals. They contend that these legal provisions contribute to an unjust and discriminatory treatment of animals based on their species, which is ethically problematic.

The plea contends that the mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are also unjust, irrational, and arbitrary. It argues that these sections, by treating animals as property and implying their moral inferiority compared to humans, promote an inherent bias. This bias results in an arbitrary classification of animals and is, therefore, deemed unreasonable and unacceptable. The petitioners assert that these legal provisions contribute to an unjust and discriminatory attitude towards animals, which is inconsistent with ethical principles.

The plea highlights that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are inadequate for safeguarding the rights of animals in cases of serious offenses like maiming or killing. This inadequacy becomes especially evident when it is not feasible to assign a monetary value to the animal. Furthermore, the plea points out that the IPC provisions do not adequately address situations involving street animals, animals with disabilities, or animals rendered unprofitable due to old age. In such cases, the existing legal framework does not offer sufficient protection for these animals.

The high court has set a date for the next hearing on the petition, which is scheduled for October 13th.