Yesterday, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a petition challenging the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act which allow "the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed" and "the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law".

A division bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal allowed the petitioners to withdraw the petition giving them liberty to approach the concerned High Court.

The petition was filed by former Indian cricket team captain Kapil Dev along with two other activists in the backdrop of a shocking incident of a stray pregnant dog being tortured and killed in Delhi in November 2022.

In its petition, he highlighted various reported instances of animal cruelty in India to argue that the law is inadequate.

Further, the petitioner sought for guidelines to ensure dignified treatment to animals and for effective prosecution in complaints of animal cruelty. The petitioners also contended that the punishments prescribed for animal cruelty are inadequate and hence challenged the constitutionality of Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code.

Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, pointed out that as per Section 428 IPC, the offence of killing or maiming an animal of the value of ten rupees is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. However, as per Section 429 IPC, the same offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to five years if the value of the animal is Rs.50. He contended that fixing different punishments for the same offence of animal cruelty on the basis of the commercial and utility value of the animal is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary.

Lekhi submitted that Section 11(3) (b) and (c) of the Act provide for the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods and for the extermination or destruction of any animal. He further referred to section 9 (f) of PCA 1960, the Animal Welfare Board has “to take all such steps to ensure that unwanted animals are destroyed by local authorities".

The petitioner contended that Section 11 (3) of PCA,1960 carves out exceptions for animal husbandry procedures such as dehorning, castration, nose-roping, and branding of animals. However, no guidelines through rules or regulations have been laid down for these procedures to be carried out without inflicting trauma upon the animal.

Despite the persuasive arguments of the senior counsel, the bench said that it has reservations about entertaining the matter since the High Courts are also equally capable of granting the reliefs.

"Your petitioners' standing is very high in the country, the will earn the same respect even if they go to HC", the bench said. "When the Supreme Court takes up such cases, it gives an impression that the high court is not capable of taking up such issues", it added.

“After some submissions into the matter, the petitioner prays for liberty to withdraw writ petition so that they’re in a position to move HC with prayers made in this W.P. Accepting the above, WP stands dismissed", the bench noted in the order.

Case title: Kapil Dev and others v Union of India