Animals have emotions and feelings similar to human beings and the only difference is that the animals cannot speak and hence cannot assert their rights, observed the Bombay High Court while refusing to hand over custody of 68 cattle, including milching buffaloes, to persons, who claimed to be owners.
Great sensitivity to be shown in cases involving animal cruelty: HC
Justice GA Sanap, sitting at the Nagpur bench of HC, also remarked that while considering cruelty to animals, the case must be approached with and decided with great sensitivity.
“Animals have emotions, feelings and senses similar to a human being. The only difference is that the animals cannot speak and therefore, though their rights are recognised under the law, they cannot assert the same. The rights of the animals, welfare of the animals and protection of the animals has to be taken care of by the concerned in accordance with law,” observed the court, adding: “It is to be noted that while considering the case of cruelty, to the animals in any form, the case has to be approached and decided with great sensitivity.”
Petitioners failed to follow norms while transporting cattle
The HC was hearing two petitions filed by persons who claimed they had license to purchase and sell animals and had purchased these cattle. They sought release of the cattle which were confiscated under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act (PCA Act) for failing to follow mandatory norms while transporting the animals. The animals were placed at a Gaushala.
The Nagpur police, on March 1 and 10, 2022 seized total 68 cattle from four vehicles on a tip that the animals were illegally transported. A case was registered under various sections of the PCA Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
It was alleged that the cattle were being transported in an inhuman condition without following Transport of Animals Rules. The Rules provide that only six animals can be transported in a vehicle with padded sides and make provisions of water and fodder. Also a vicenarian has to provide a fitness certificate for all the animals. None of this was followed as four vehicles ferried 2-3 times the prescribe limit.
The petitioners approached the HC after their pleas were rejected by a magistrate’s court and sessions court.
Cattle to remain with Gaushala till end of trial
The petitioners’ advocate argued that they possessed valid trade licence for sale and purchase of the animals from APMC market. They cannot be denied cattle’s custody. Further, some of the cattle were milching and the petitioners were denied income. Also, the petitioner did not treat the cattle with cruelty and they cannot be made to wait till the end of the trial.
The advocate for the Maa Foundation Gaushala said they were better equipped to keep the cattle. They also agreed to waive off the maintenance charges for the 68 cattle.
The judge ruled that till the end of the trial the buffaloes would remain with the Gaushala.
The court upheld magistrate’s order and said that the “petitioners were not entitled to get the custody of animals” while dismissing the petitions.
